Iran
	 — 
	Question

Lord Judd: To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the new United States Administration on future policy towards Iran.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary met the new US Secretary of State on 3 February for detailed talks on Iran. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's political director took part yesterday in talks with his US opposite number and officials from China, France, Germany and Russia. FCO officials both here and in Washington have been in close touch with the new Administration. We will continue to work closely together on this issue.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is not the firm, pragmatic approach of President Obama exactly the policy that we should be fully supporting? Must not human rights always be central to our considerations, and what are the latest developments concerning the British Council? Does my noble friend agree that underlying economic and political weaknesses in Iran suggest that there may be more room for leverage in negotiations than is sometimes supposed? Is not our task to win Iran, with its great history, into playing a positive role in the region, rather than to humiliate it?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend raises a series of important interrelated points. President Obama has made it clear that he indeed wants fundamentally to revisit the US relationship with Iran, and I think he will be guided by exactly the pragmatism that my noble friend suggests. He said that it will take several months, and that is right, because we want to make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater—and the baby is the very important E3+3 negotiation on the nuclear programme. Yes, we need to broaden the contacts and discussion with Iran, but we need to indicate that there is no backing off from our fundamental requirement that it does not proceed with a nuclear weapons programme, and, indeed, that we secure improvements on issues such as human rights. In that regard, the closing of the British Council office is a very sad setback.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches must congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their success: the new American Secretary of State spoke to the British Foreign Minister just before she spoke to the German Foreign Minister. We understand how important these little questions of status are.
	Does the Minister agree that those who say that the worst thing we could do to President Ahmadinejad and his hard-line regime is to open a dialogue and make it quite clear that we do not intend to work to overthrow the regime, as his regime thrives on confrontation and the belief that the whole world is against Iran; but that encouraging those in Iran who are not fully behind this rather nasty regime is exactly what we should be doing?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I say in a mischievous spirit similar to that of the noble Lord's opening remarks that it takes a Liberal Democrat to notice these small points about pecking orders. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for it. On his second point, he is correct in that any broader engagement with the regime in Iran must undermine that regime's tendency to fall back on populist, nationalist arguments of isolation, yet the real challenge for the Obama Administration is to find credible interlocutors in Iran—not people who posture but those who will deliver real policy results from such a dialogue.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest in this topic. I re-established relations with Iran in 1986 after an interval of many years only to have those relations broken off two weeks later, on Valentine's Day, by the issuing of the fatwa about the book published at that time. That indicates that the matter should be approached with considerable precaution. I remember a 1920s railway timetable for Chevening which disclosed in a list of embassies in London that then only three embassies represented Asian countries: Japan, China and Persia. Does that not underline the importance of trying to establish terms with that Government while warning against the hazards that lie ahead?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord offers wise advice. President Obama has indicated that it will take some months and a lot of consultation to arrive at any new policy initiative but that this revisiting of policy should not be mistaken as in some way going soft on the nuclear issue. It was again confirmed in the talks on 3 and 4 February to which I referred that the Americans want to move prudently to broaden the contact in a way that does not compromise the fundamental objectives which we continue to seek and which have remained constant from the previous Administration to this one.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, has the Minister made any representations to the authorities in Iran about the virtual closure of the British Council's operation in that country? What lessons does he draw from the launch of a new missile in Iran earlier this week?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, on the first point, the Foreign Secretary is making, or has made, a Written Statement on this. The British Council was forced to close the office as a result of harassment of its staff. We have made it clear to the Iranians that we consider that to be utterly unacceptable and that we want the British Council to be able to restart its operations as soon as possible. The Iranians have said that they would be prepared to negotiate a new cultural co-operation agreement, which would allow the British Council to reopen, but they have not responded to our attempts to start a discussion on that. As to my noble friend's second point, we are extremely concerned about the launch of the satellite. This kind of launch technology is potentially of a dual-use character and might therefore be capable of launching ballistic missiles as well.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I agree fully with the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Judd, but does the Minister believe that the success of our policy towards Iran will depend largely on its policy in relation to us? Secondly, does he believe that, with the forthcoming presidential elections, there is likely to be a better policy arrangement between us and Iran?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, we have to see what the elections bring. We have all read the interesting reports of reform candidates regathering their courage and their organisational capacity to run, as they believe from opinion polls that they have support. That has been covered in the media. However, it is probably very imprudent to comment in this House on Iranian elections, as I suspect that we would handicap the horses that we would like to see win.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, with regard to the other worthy policy objectives concerning our relations with Iran, will the noble Lord include an exhortation to the Iranian head of state that he should no longer express the wish and desire that the state of Israel be expunged?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think that the whole world has agreed that what he said is absolutely abhorrent; he has said it not just once but on many occasions. It goes back to my earlier point: however much we want to find a better dialogue with Iran, we have to find credible interlocutors. The President, in many of the things he says, raises doubts about whether he is such an interlocutor.

Housing
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Whitaker: To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will help home owners and people who need a home in the current economic situation.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we recognise that the housing market faces significant challenges. We continue to take action both to support home owners and first-time buyers and by doing all we can to keep the housebuilding programme on track.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive Answer. Does she agree that one of the best routes to social mobility is decent, well designed housing for all who need it? What can the Government do to ensure that all housing schemes underwritten or facilitated by statutory authorities can meet the highest housing need without cutting corners on quality, both in the design of housing and of neighbourhoods, particularly in view of current information that some housebuilders are orchestrating a move to renege on quality standards?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, even though we face unique challenges in our housebuilding programme, it would be a huge mistake if we were to send any signal that we are any less serious about quality. In the past year, not least thanks to the efforts of my noble friend, we have passed the Housing and Regeneration Act and the Planning Act, which will ensure that all delivery bodies, including the Homes and Communities Agency, must aim to deliver well designed homes and neighbourhoods. We are taking that work forward with the Homes and Communities Agency and our partner, CABE.

Lord Best: My Lords, in relation to the plight of home owners in today's economic situation—I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents—will the Minister comment on the Government's reaction to the report from the Office of Fair Trading on the practice of sale and rent back, whereby home owners in difficulties sell their property to a company which then lets it back to them? Unfortunately, the purchase of those properties is often at a knock-down price and the occupiers discover that they have very little security of tenure. This is a loophole that the OFT suggests needs the regulation of the Financial Services Authority. Are the Government able to comment on the OFT's report on this?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I think the whole House would agree that it is outrageous at this time for anyone to seek to exploit the misery of people who are in very difficult circumstances. I am glad to say that we are having conversations with the FSA at the moment about the prospects for regulation.

Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I rent out property. There are now more than one million families struggling with their mortgages, more than one and a quarter million families trapped in negative equity and one and three quarter million on the homeless waiting list. The Government say they are doing all they can on repossessions, but the reality is that repossessions have doubled, led, incidentally, by the government-owned bank, Northern Rock. Now, to cap it all, they propose to grant draconian new powers to bailiffs. Is it not the case that the Government say they are helping families and home owners but the reality is nothing of the sort? I half expect the Minister to say, "Don't worry. It's the birth pangs of the new housing market".

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I think that is an unfortunate phrase. We doing all we can and giving real help. We have prioritised people who are most vulnerable though our mortgage rescue scheme, which we are working up with lenders, and £400 million is going into it to help people who might become homeless because they cannot make their mortgage payments. We are prioritising people who are at risk of losing their jobs. Through a lender-led scheme—the Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme—we are working with major lenders to help many home owners. We do not want to see a single repossession because repossession and homelessness are more expensive than anything we can do. We are prioritising first-time buyers and have brought forward a new scheme with lenders, New Build HomeBuy Direct. We are putting in a 30 per cent stake, which we share with developers. We have 130 developers involved at a cost of £400 million. The total package announced in the Pre-Budget Report was £750 million, not only to support home owners but to support the whole of the construction industry.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that finance is available to housing associations? Housing associations are as affected by the reductions in lending as other organisations at the very time when it would make sense to increase construction.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I could not agree more. We are bringing forward £550 million for affordable homes, which will give us 7,500 homes 18 months earlier than otherwise. Much of that money will go to enable RSLs to buy up unsold developers' stock and to expand their grant-making capacity.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that our policy on homeless families impacts greatly on those who are waiting on the list? Is she aware that about 25,000 families are on the waiting list in east London? What does her department intend to do about the new housing to be built on the Olympic site to address the need for family housing?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Olympic investment is extremely timely not only in the jobs that it will create but the housing that it will build for east London. I have mentioned the £550 million for social homes. We are also removing barriers to council house building, changing the revenue and capital grants and inviting councils to bid for capital subsidy. We are consulting on the proposed changes. We are looking for the most pragmatic, effective ways to build, buy and sell more houses across the board with all our partners.

Afghanistan: UK Forces
	 — 
	Question

Lord Astor of Hever: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the robustness and security of lines of communication and supply to British forces in Afghanistan.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, our lines of communication for logistic support to British troops serving in Afghanistan are robust and reliable, and we have an effective air bridge. The security of the routes used to supply UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan is continuously reviewed.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, but the destruction of the bridge in the Khyber region illustrates the vulnerability of our supply lines. How long might it take to repair or replace that bridge, and what progress has been made in negotiations with Afghanistan's northern neighbours, particularly in the light of Kyrgyzstan's efforts to close the US base in that country?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, the destruction of the bridge in the Khyber Pass at Jamrud was a serious incident. The Pakistan authorities have been extremely helpful in finding emergency alternative routes and are working on construction of an alternative—a Bailey bridge, I think. We are not by any means totally dependent on that route and, at the moment, we do not think that that is having or will have a significant impact. We always look at the possibility of strengthening other routes and, fortunately, we are not totally dependent on the Khyber Pass, and nor is NATO.

Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, the likely increase in American forces in Afghanistan and the closure of the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan, which has just been referred to, is likely to make it extremely difficult to supply fuel to the increased Allied forces in Afghanistan. How concerned are the Government about that?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, clearly, keeping supplies available at the appropriate level is very important when anyone is considering increases in force levels there, be it the Americans or anyone else. We are enacting a number of measures to ensure that we can continue to support our troops by the strategic air bridge. We have some short-term measures using additional lines of communication, using chartered aircraft to fly to the Middle East and then using our own aircraft to fly into Afghanistan. We are looking at a variety of methods and we are absolutely determined that we should not be dependent on only one supply route for anything vital.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, bearing in mind that the additional use of aircraft will require greater refuelling in Afghanistan, will the Minister say something about the adequacy of fuel provision there?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, we are satisfied that we have adequate fuel supplies available in Afghanistan. One advantage of using the Middle East as a stopover is that we can use airports other than those in Afghanistan for refuelling for return journeys. That is proving very helpful and something that we may explore further.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, will the Minister say more about the closure of the American airbase in Kyrgyzstan near Bishkek, which was not a complete surprise? What alternative arrangements can be made to make up for that loss?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I did say that we keep all our approaches and possible supply routes under review, as does the United States. It is important that no one is dependent on a single route, be it through the Khyber Pass or anywhere else. That is why, together with our NATO allies, we have considered a range of novel suggestions and contracts—for example, using civilian helicopters to airlift in non-essential supplies that can be taken on civilian aircraft. We are mindful of the need to keep a variety of routes and options open. We review this continuously and liaise with allies, so that we can review it with them.

Northern Ireland: Consultative Group on the Past
	 — 
	Question

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report by the Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the report launched last week is a complex one that makes 31 recommendations on some of the most difficult challenges facing Northern Ireland today. One of the recommendations has provoked an understandably strong reaction. Naturally, the Government will be taking time to reflect on all the proposals carefully and will be discussing them with a wide range of people before taking any decisions.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that cautious Answer, but will she consider the situation if the proposed £12,000 payment to the families of terrorists was extended to the London Underground suicide bombers? Would the Minister, or indeed the Government, then be quite so ambivalent?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government have a responsibility to consider all the recommendations. I stress that we are looking to achieve consensus on anything that we bring forward, and it is absolutely clear that there is no consensus on this point.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I understand that the Historical Enquiries Team and the powers of the ombudsman to investigate the past will be transferred to the legacy commission. Will the noble Baroness tell us whether this commission will be funded properly for that job?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, what happens to the Historical Enquiries Team will, of course, flow from the recommendations. We are still considering those recommendations, and it would be inappropriate for me at this point to talk about things such as cost.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look carefully at the novel proposals for what is called "information recovery", which is part of the matter touched on by the noble Baroness speaking for the Liberal Democrats? This could require the production of documents and compel witnesses to attend and give evidence at what is, in effect, a trial held in secret, without a jury and without all the safeguards of our legal system. I suggest to the Minister that she should not wait for consultation but should just say that this proposal is not human rights-compliant.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, all the points raised by noble Lords this morning are extremely important. I am not saying that they will necessarily be consulted on, but the Government themselves need to reflect carefully before making any statements on these issues.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, whatever their intentions, consultative groups and public inquiries such as Saville, which is costing some £200 million and rising, imposed from outside our fledgling devolved Administration, constitute a huge irritation to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, pose a threat to a community that is anxious to put the suffering of the past behind it?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the area of inquiries is difficult. Those that are being undertaken will proceed as they are at present. I understand the points made by the noble Lord, but we have given undertakings and we must fulfil our obligations. On the matter of cost, it is deeply regrettable that the people who really seem to gain from such inquiries are the lawyers. You could say that the Government are learning an enormous amount about the cost of such inquiries.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, whatever view may be taken of some of the recommendations of this consultative group, was it not an act of almost heroic selflessness on the part of the group to accept the Government's invitation in the first place?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Yes, my Lords, indeed it was. I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, a man whom I hold in great esteem. He had a very difficult task.

Lord Morrow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the many failings of this report is its inability to differentiate the guilty and the innocent?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, before the Government have given the report its proper and due consideration, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about failings.

Arrangement of Business
	 — 
	Announcement

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Malloch-Brown will repeat a Statement made in the other place about Mr Binyam Mohamed. The Statement will be repeated after the debate on the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell.

Business of the House
	 — 
	Timing of Debates

Moved By Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
	That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Eatwell and Baroness Gale set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
	Motion agreed.

Economy
	 — 
	Debate

Moved By Lord Eatwell
	To call attention to the Government's plans to counter the social and economic impact of the current financial situation; and to move for Papers.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I begin with a quotation:
	"This is the first financial crisis of the global age. And there is no clear map that has been set out from past experience to deal with it ... we're learning all the time".
	That was the Prime Minister speaking in Davos on 31 January. His statement was important, for it reminds us that no one has the perfect answer to all the complex problems of the current economic turmoil. Anyone who says that they know exactly what to do is either a fool or trying to fool you.
	The Government's response to the crisis has been a learning process. The stuttering start in dealing with Northern Rock has been followed by the smooth operation to rescue Bradford & Bingley and, of course, by the development of the special resolution regime to be established by the Banking Bill now being discussed in your Lordships' House. The first investments in the banks were absolutely vital to save the industry from collapse, but they were too expensive and did not go far enough, hence the more recent and better designed investments and the guarantee scheme. The £20 billion boost to demand at the time of the Pre-Budget Report will, I believe, need to be supplemented and developed in the Budget itself.
	A similar learning curve can be seen in the United States: first, the allocation of funds to the TARP to buy up "troubled" assets; then, the funds were switched into America's own version of the bank bail-out; then, some of the funds were used to make loans to the car manufacturers; and now, the purchase of troubled assets is back on the agenda again, together with a trillion-dollar boost in demand. In Germany the Finance Minister first criticised British policy as "crass Keynesianism", but then he announced a €50 billion fiscal boost in infrastructure spending, double the size of Britain's Keynesian programme. But there are still some carping voices which appear to have learned nothing. Mr George Osborne, for the Conservative Party, remains wedded to the idea of a balanced budget, just as some in the Republican Party oppose the very concept of President Obama's stimulus package.
	Of course the new policy measures involve risks. Direct purchase of assets by the Bank of England, guarantee schemes, financial stimulus by quantitative easing, large fiscal deficits—all these carry very well known economic and financial risks. However, I am convinced that the risks associated with doing too much are as nothing compared with the risk associated with doing too little. If anything, the Government have been too cautious and too constrained by now irrelevant economic orthodoxies. Today, while value for money is a virtue, prudence is a vice. But even as the Government battle the immediate financial mayhem, it is important both that the social consequences of the recession are kept in mind and that we begin to develop a strategy for the future. There must be no "return to normal" if by "normal" we mean the economy of 2006.
	I shall comment on just three important social consequences of the recession, the first of which is unemployment. Unemployment will inevitably rise over the next year or so. The Government's policy for the past several years has been to encourage the unemployed to seek work by introducing a range of new training opportunities while reducing the scale and availability of benefits, particularly for those who are not proactive in their search for work. While this may be a productive approach at a time when employment opportunities are rising, this policy has far less value as vacancies fall and unemployment rises. It is important for social cohesion and for the maintenance of demand in the economy as a whole that the costs of the recession do not fall disproportionately on those who are its innocent victims.
	The second concerns housing. The Government's measures on housing were described just a few minutes ago by my noble friend Lady Andrews. The repossession of houses belonging to those in mortgage arrears due to loss of jobs and other factors associated with the recession is personally costly and socially inefficient. The banks repossessing homes recover only a small proportion of the value of loans made, at the cost of considerable human misery, and then the burden of housing the newly homeless falls on hard-pressed local authorities. In the face of the crisis in housing finance, what is needed is a special resolution regime for housing to accompany the special resolution regime that we are creating for the banks. A wide variety of measures—temporary payments holidays as proposed by the Government; shared equity; purchase by local authorities and housing associations with conversion of mortgaged property into rented accommodation, aided by the funding proposals advocated by Sir James Crosby—could be part of the housing resolution regime, together with the intention to return properties to securely funded home ownership in the future.
	The third, and I suppose that several of us could declare an interest here, concerns pensioners. The fall in share prices and the cuts in interest rates are having a devastating effect on pensioners. It is vital that pensioner living standards are supported and that future saving for retirement is not discouraged. A good place to start would be to build on the old National Savings scheme of "granny bonds"—government-backed bonds offering inflation-proof rates of return to pensioners, hence taking the fear and uncertainty out of saving.
	Tackling these social problems will contribute to tackling the recession itself. However, we face a challenge far greater than learning how to deal with the current emergency. If there is no acceptable "normal" to return to, then what should be the shape of our economic future, and how do we get there? One aspect is clear. The growth of financial and business services to more than 30 per cent of gross domestic product has seriously unbalanced our economy. The main reason is that those financial services are not primarily a product of British savings. Instead, the City of London is an offshore trading centre for the rest of the world, uniquely skilled at repackaging risk and return into ever more attractive and ever more complex financial products. That is fine when everything is going well, but Britain is consequentially exposed to enormous overseas risk as UK banks borrow short from abroad and lend long. This must not be allowed to happen in the same way again. From now on, the argument that a particular policy is good or bad for the competitive position of the City will no longer be decisive. Instead, advocates will need to show that any particular policy is good for the competitiveness and the stability of the UK productive economy taken as a whole.
	How did these dangerous imbalances arise? Thirty years ago, most loans to businesses and individuals were made by banks or specialist institutions such as building societies. The deregulatory fervour of the 1980s changed all that. Credit markets were "disintermediated", which means that instead of banks acting as intermediaries between savers and borrowers, the markets took over. Investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, RBS and Barclays Capital were all at the centre of this, taking on massive amounts of debt relative to their capital base in order to deal profitably in the complex web of international markets. Guiding their operations were their mathematical risk models: statistical models that assessed the riskiness of their operations against patterns of past market behaviour. The firms claimed that they could manage risky markets by and for themselves, and the Finance Ministers, central bankers and regulators swallowed that claim and let them get on with it. Faith in transparency, disclosure and risk management by firms has been at the heart of financial policy. One of our most urgent tasks is to rid ourselves of this false philosophy. We now know that the biggest risks are systemic risks, such as a general failure of liquidity—risks that no firm alone can manage. In the face of systemic market failures, even the most transparent market is inefficient.
	What is needed is what is now called macro-prudential regulation, which tackles the system as a whole. For example, financial institutions must undertake pro-cyclical provisioning. That means forcing banks to raise their reserves in good times—an unpopular policy that we will be told will be bad for competitiveness—and using those reserves as a cushion in bad times. To be truly effective, macro-prudential regulation must escape from the present archaic focus on the legal status of institutions. Commercial banks are regulated differently from investment banks, which are regulated differently from insurance companies, and so on. Hedge funds are not regulated at all. Instead, regulation should be targeted on highly indebted, highly leveraged institutions, whatever their formal legal status. Debt can play an important positive role in the economy, but there can be much too much of a good thing. Excessive debt threatens stability. However, if there is less debt, less lending and less borrowing, there will be less spending. How are we to maintain demand while urging banks, firms and households to take fewer risks?
	In the short run, only the Government can do the heavy lifting. Policies to maintain demand by cutting taxes—especially taxes on the poor, who have the great macro-economic benefit of spending every pound they get—and increasing government expenditure are vital if the economy is not to slide into depression. This is recognised around the world. In the medium term, demand must be driven by innovative industrial and commercial investment, changing the balance of the UK economy and winning markets at home and abroad. Government spending on infrastructure now will aid in this drive for competitiveness. A new pro-industry approach will focus on skills, on the exploitation of new technologies and on creativity, and there must be funding to do the job. That is the proper role of the financial sector.
	This will have important consequences for the structure of the labour force. One of the negative outcomes of the growth of the City has been that so much talent has been sucked into financial services. Now the brilliant mathematicians and physicists, who have spent their time enhancing the complexities of financial engineering, must do some real engineering. We must ensure that they are supported and incentivised in the transition.
	There is, however, a serious barrier to short-term economic recovery and sustained economic progress in the medium term. In a global economy, the success of all these policies—creating a stable financial sector, boosting demand in the face of recession, maintaining medium-term growth—depends on international co-operation and co-ordination. That is why the G20 meeting in London in April is so important.
	In all areas of the economy new international economic relationships must be forged, backed by new international institutions. Here we are lucky because there is a map to guide us. The principles developed by the late Lord Keynes and embodied in post-war institutions hold good today, even though the actual application of those principles will be completely different. In the light of the bitter lessons of the financial instability of the 1930s, Lord Keynes sought to devise a system that would deliver stability and maintain the growth of demand.
	To achieve the same today, the G20 must tackle three major problems. First, the serious international imbalances that saw the United States running ever larger balance-of-payments deficits with China, and hence accumulating ever larger indebtedness, were unsustainable and indeed were a major cause of our current woes. It must be accepted by all that running major balance-of-payments surpluses is a seriously destabilising policy for the world. Countries with persistent surpluses must accept measures that will reduce those surpluses, preferably by exchange-rate revaluation.
	Second, national stimulus to demand in the face of the recession must be a common strategy. There must be no free-riders. If nations do not act in concert then those that do expand will be left holding the world's deficits—again, an unsustainable position that will undermine the whole recovery. Thirdly, as far as finance is concerned, international markets require international regulation, with rules not only agreed upon but adhered to and enforced both nationally and internationally.
	In 1998, in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, it was this Government who persuaded the G7 to set up the Financial Stability Forum, the intergovernmental think tank for international financial regulation. Now the G20 will need to construct an operational counterpart to that forum that can monitor and co-ordinate measures implemented in individual jurisdictions. The Prime Minister has suggested that the IMF could fulfil that role but I am not convinced that this would be the best approach, since what is needed is an organisation that has a new sort of relationship with authorities in systemically relevant countries. The new authority must be able to tell the US Government when they are making mistakes, something the IMF is unlikely to do.
	I am optimistic. In the face of the most serious economic and financial turmoil since the war, Governments are acting and learning. The determination to tackle short-term and medium-term problems is evident around the world, and our Government are part of that international consensus for action. The economy is not an immutable force that we can do nothing about. It is a set of social institutions devised by individuals, firms and Governments. We can fix it, and we will. I beg to move.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for introducing this debate. It is a difficult debate, but it has to be timely to call attention to the Government's plans—I would, of course, say "successive Governments' plans"—to counter the social and economic impact of the current financial situation. I will try to look at this Motion more from the point of view of a member of the public than from that of a politician, and perhaps more from the point of view of a Lindsey striker who has returned to work. For many years I was in the construction industry; I managed many construction sites and negotiated with many construction workers.
	I start as an Edmund Burke Tory. I believe we are beneficiaries of the people who came before us and trustees of the people who come after us. Since it is common for us to see six generations and shortly, given medical science, it will be quite usual to see seven generations, continuity is of the greatest importance. I believe in evolution not revolution. Any crisis is most unwelcome, as it would have been to Edmund Burke.
	This crisis had a dress rehearsal—Northern Rock, the freezing of credit and the withdrawal of wholesale market finance. It seemed strange at the time but what were the other banks doing? I was brought up to believe that they helped each other. What did the banks say to the FSA, each other and the Treasury? Was it just that they wanted the new kid off the block?
	It seems that no plans were made in the light of Northern Rock. All those involved were in denial. Then came Iceland and Bradford & Bingley, and still there was no plan and still there was denial. It is impossible to have a plan when in denial. Denial is the unwillingness to analyse and then to tell the public where we are. Maybe, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested, it could be an inability to do that which is holding us back. Our understanding of where we are increases by the day.
	Denial 1 is: "It started in the United States". These are typically careful words. Although they are true to a degree they are woefully economical. We have three out of the five largest banks. Why did they join in? Second is: "We have plenty of room to take on more debt". This is an historic statement dependent on out-of-date comparisons. Where does the PFI come into the statement? Where does household debt come into it? We are never told in any of the statements about the totality of debt, only about the historic public debt.
	Then there is: "We need to regain confidence in the banks". Yes, but how about the banks' loss of confidence in themselves? Their risk models in this digital age did not work. They are in a state of trauma and there is no way we will be confident in the banks until they are again confident in themselves. Meanwhile, what is happening is tactical. Everything is being done, according to the Government, for those who are in trouble—mortgage trouble and the potentially unemployed—but what about the effect of low interest rates on elderly savers? What about the savings ratio, which when the statistics come out may well have been negative in the last quarter of last year?
	We are told of the advantages of the flexibility of our labour market but where is the public sector flexibility? You only need to look at private sector pensions and what is happening to them versus public sector pensions. This is an illustration of some of the tensions which are building in society and which make the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, so important.
	We have been riding two horses—first, markets, financial services and light regulation; and alongside that, social engineering bringing rapidly rising public sector employment and contingent liabilities and commitments into the future. This is a stunning outcome from 11 years of mindless risk-taking by all who entered the big tent of Blair and Brown.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, spoke about risk now. There will, however, be a great aversion to risk in the light of the way that risk has treated us and got us into the situation in which we find ourselves today.
	Is it possible, therefore, to have a plan to limit the impact on the social structure and the economy? There is one essential ingredient—leadership. This is the willingness and ability to come in front of the people and tell them the score: this is where we are, this is the direction of travel and this is what the journey will be like. I know that that is a very unfashionable view; it is probably regarded as an out-of-date approach to the sophistication of the chattering classes and the people. But perhaps it is not wrong; maybe it is just unavailable.
	In any plan it is necessary to know what to leave out. There are things which are for tomorrow, and there are things over which we have no realistic control. The first of those, pace the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is the Bretton Woods regime. There are three problems, the first of which is our record. We have always been against any sensible reform of the Bretton Woods institution, and we have sidelined the IMF for years. Secondly, this is for the next time—it does nothing for this crisis. Thirdly, the central issue, as has been said, is the trade imbalance between China and the United States of America, and we do not have any control over that.
	We should leave out a simple, unstructured Keynesian "borrow and spend our way out" approach. There are three problems, the first of which is human nature. Many people will not even attempt to join in—they are savers, not spenders. Secondly, we are trustees, and there must be some limit. Thirdly, our economy is not well placed; the period of easy credit concealed underlying longer term issues, and we have a great propensity to import. That is why the IMF has given the judgment that it has, another thing about which we are in denial.
	In outline, what do we need? First, and most importantly, there must be shared responsibility: no one saw this coming and we all contributed to it—and I mean "all". Secondly, there must be an understanding that we do not have the room to manoeuvre to regain economic growth and stability on our own—we rely on others, principally the United States of America, and God bless Obama. Thirdly, there must be a willingness to accept that when an upturn comes, as it will, it will take years to rebalance our social and economic affairs. Meanwhile, we need to do all that we can for each other.
	Such a plain man's approach may seem to be nothing but a cliché, to be fleshed out with lots of detailed measures which, we hope, will meet its theme. I do not agree with that. We need a simple theme because we need to pull together in times which will affect different people very differently and when it will be all too easy for society to fall apart. Northern Rock was a warning of a falling apart, which we did not heed; Lindsey could be another. Let us not be caught twice.

Earl of Stair: My Lords, I rise to speak too long after taking my seat following the passing of my late noble friend, Lady Darcy de Knayth. It is a great honour to return to the House and I look forward to contributing more in the future.
	The state of the national and global economy is reported on in our papers daily. Without a doubt, we are still in an extremely serious situation, with no immediate chance of recovery. However, we do not see much in the media about the Government's plans for the support of small business, although I notice that the Real Help with Finance package is being managed by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
	The real long-term impact of this recession is extremely destructive to the small business sector—here I declare an interest, as I am involved in the sector. That is particularly true in rural and far-flung corners of the country and in areas of high unemployment, where even the loss of 20 jobs is significant. In Stranraer, in south-west Scotland, a town where unemployment seldom falls below 5 per cent even in good times, the demise of Baby Deer, a long-established clothing company, was directly as a result of problems experienced on the high street and particularly with Woolworths.
	Some years back, when the foot and mouth disaster hit the United Kingdom, in the south of Scotland, the then Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise and the Dumfries and Galloway Council managed, with financial help from the Scottish Executive, to organise an excellent business support scheme which, without doubt, helped many small and tourism businesses to survive in what would otherwise have been a catastrophic time.
	I am particularly interested to hear how the Government intend to manage the real help with finance programme. The website for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform assures the reader that the Action for Business programme and Real Help with Finance programme are United Kingdom initiatives. Can the Minister explain how these will be implemented in the devolved areas and rural sectors?

Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for introducing this debate and making such an excellent speech. I suppose by "excellent" I mean that I agree with everything that he said. To begin, I would welcome a comment from the Minister on how interest-rate policy is working or, rather, not working. Certainly, the cuts have adversely affected lenders, whose income from past savings has fallen. Equally certainly, borrowers have not gained from lower interest rates since there appear to be no funds for them to borrow in the first place. It looks as though nobody has gained. Is my noble friend able to throw any light on this?
	Next, since large parts of the banking system are, to all intents and purposes, in the public sector, what influence can the Government exert on how banks behave? For example, how many non-executive directors have been sacked? What view do we take of auditors who appear not to have noticed the existence of toxic assets? Above all, the bankers, despite being the cause of the catastrophe, still seem to regard self-preservation as their priority, rather than getting the economy moving forward again. I, for one, look on with amazement as the senior bankers, who are the villains of the piece, are invited to Downing Street for consultations. Equally, given that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England was almost the last to recognise the need for expansion in macroeconomic policy, on what rational grounds can it be thought right to place banking supervision—again—under the aegis of the Bank of England?
	It has been said that we need a new Maynard Keynes. We do not. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, all we need to do is apply the principles of economics that Keynes laid down 70 years ago. We really need a new George Orwell; only a satirist of his quality could do justice to all of this.
	This brings me to straightforward economics. What I find embarrassing is the large number of economists who have learned nothing from recent events. Indeed, many academic economists are still publishing articles that prove that what has happened in the past 18 years could not possibly have happened. It is apparent to almost everybody else, when the economy is subject to a major shock and moves significantly away from full employment equilibrium, that Keynes's analysis was entirely right: the automatic path back to full employment is so slow as to be indiscernible to almost everybody. Indeed, it is so slow that it probably does not occur to them at all. That is why expansionary fiscal policy is needed and why Governments, with our own being the earliest to act, are right to adopt an expansionary fiscal approach.
	Turning away from economics, I refer now to the social impact of what has been going on, by which I mean the need for fairness in our society and economy. What has been discredited, apart from some of the economics, is the trickle-down theory, which was put forward during what we are told were the good years. That is, if we support enterprise and let the rich get richer, everyone else will gain. In the US that has simply turned out to be completely untrue. The median worker in the US gained nothing over the 20 good years. Even in our economy, inequality has risen in broad terms. The time has come to call a halt and to ask how any policy intervention will affect the poorest in our society. It is as important that Ministers are obliged to make a declaration on how the poorest are affected by any policy as it is that they make a similar declaration on the human rights effects. Fairness to the poor is at least as important as human rights.
	We should stop demonising single mothers. I do not doubt that children would be better off with two parents being there for them, but the children are not at fault when there is only one. Furthermore, if we are to encourage single parents to return to the labour market when the children are old enough, which is right—Orwell would really have appreciated that being a central plank of government policy when unemployment is rising at an unprecedented rate, and would have felt that it was taking satire too far—three conditions need to be met. One is that the jobs have to be there to go to; secondly, there should be incentives—namely, people should be better off by taking the job; and, thirdly, even when children are older, we need to make sure that proper arrangements exist for emergency childcare. More generally, we should compare the attitude of some people—I cannot exclude Ministers from this—to single parents who work the benefits system to their advantage with their attitude to the fat cats who use every possible means to avoid paying tax altogether. The distinction is dreadful.
	On the latter, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister worked extremely hard when he was Chancellor to close tax avoidance loopholes, but he discovered that, whenever he closed one, two more sprang up. The best way to deal with this is to reverse the burden of proof when it comes to tax avoidance; namely, the avoidance scheme needs to be demonstrably legal. Until it is demonstrated as such, the full rate of tax should apply.
	My main conclusion is that the Government are right to pursue an expansionary fiscal policy and deserve everybody's support for it. Things will get worse before they get better, but that is not a reason for flinching. The Government must go on acting with determination and reinforcing the policies so that they will work.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Banking Bill which we are currently discussing in the House is very complex and detailed, but it does nothing to resolve the current banking crisis, which lies at the heart of our economic problems. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has just said that it is the fault of the bankers. I agree with him up to a point, but would go further and say that the fault that really needs correcting is our whole banking system. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for bringing forward this debate.
	The Banking Bill fails to address the fault which has led to every major banking and currency crisis during the past 200 years, including this one. It merely, lazily and weakly, papers over the cracks. Like Lilliputians, we are trying to tie down Gulliver with ever more strands of rope. It did not work then; it has not worked since 1811; and it will not work now.
	In March 1997, I warned in this House that our failure then to address the banking system would lead to greater hardship. I said:
	"The cycle will continue, but the next time, as before, we will all start deeper in debt and with a burden harder to carry".—[Official Report, 5/3/97; col. 1871.]
	We did not act then in the good times. However, I am reminded of Milton Friedman's observation that it takes a crisis for real change to occur. So what better time than now?
	By January last year, I could see that the imprudence of bankers had exceeded even my worst fears and I introduced the Safety Deposit Current Accounts Bill to try to defuse the explosion that I could see coming.During the Second Reading debate in April, I asked under which Act of Parliament the current banking system had been established. I got no reply from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, whom I am glad to see in his place. I asked again in November, in the debate on the Queen's Speech. Again, there was no reply. I understand that no Act has been passed by Parliament. The current crisis, like previous ones, emanated from a base of judicial decisions. Prior to 1811, title to the money in depositors' accounts belonged to the depositor. However, in that year, decisions in Carr v Carr and, in 1848, Foley v Hill gave legal status to the banking practice of removing depositors' money from their accounts and lending it to others. Since then, title to depositors' money has transferred from the depositor to the bank at the moment when the deposit is made.
	Bankers have always seen it as their job to invest as much of their depositors' money as they prudently can, in order to earn income for themselves while, at the same time, maintaining sufficient cash flow to be able to honour depositors' cheques when presented and to meet withdrawals when demanded. If new deposits fail to materialise in sufficient strength or if borrowers fail to repay on time or at all, banks need to be rescued or they will fail. Historically, bank failures then led to a demand for central banks to act as lenders of last resort to save imprudent bankers who got caught short.
	These judicial decisions meant that, from then until now, money deposited belonged to the bank and not the depositor, thereby allowing bankers to use customers' deposits as they saw fit, always provided that they could manage cash flow so as to meet depositors' requirements. In good times, that enabled them to take greater risks. Then, with the advent of central banks as lenders of last resort, the bankers soon learned they could take even greater risks with virtual impunity. When their lending became too aggressive and their reserves and deposit receipts were less than required to meet cash flow, they began to lend to each other. Banks with excess reserves would lend on the overnight market to those with a shortfall. With all these supposed safety mechanisms to protect them, bankers came to believe they could become even more aggressive in their lending, enabling them to make increased profits for themselves.
	The provision of these safety mechanisms had, in some cases, merely encouraged them to take excessive risks. Further, these two judicial decisions overlooked or failed to consider the fact that when banks lend depositors' funds, more than one receipt for the same deposit is issued. This was not done intentionally by individual banks or it would immediately have been seen as fraudulent. Rather, it was done by the system as a whole. This process continued to the present. It is as a result that our UK money supply has grown from £31 billion in 1971, when President Nixon closed the gold window, to in excess of £1,700 billion today. Let us consider the implications of those last two figures. They mean that every year since 1971 the banking system has created, on average, for its own use, in excess of £44 billion. That is more per year than the entire money supply which had, until 1971, sustained our economy since recorded history and through two world wars. Is it any wonder that we have suffered such serious inflation over that period? It is clear that the normal, everyday onward lending of depositors' funds by retail banks has been the principal producer of inflation.
	When paper money was backed by gold, this same production of new receipts by the banking system increased the number of claims for the gold held in reserve without in any way increasing the amount of gold available to meet them. Therefore, the amount of gold available for each receipt became smaller and the value of paper money decreased. The normal, everyday banking practice of onward lending of depositors' funds led to such a continued increase in the number of claims for the gold available that it caused a series of revaluations of paper money with respect to the amount of gold each could claim. The rates of increase varied from country to country, creating complexity in foreign exchange markets and leading to a series of international agreements to try to determine the correct relationship between various national currencies and gold. The last of these was the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944. It was breached in 1971, when the huge increase in the number of dollars created since 1944 forced President Nixon to close the gold window.
	The same banking mechanism, which destroyed the gold standard, is now destroying the central banking system. Central banks can no longer cope. The Treasury and the taxpayer have now to try to pick up the pieces. In fact, the failures are so serious and banks have been so imprudent that they are now unwilling to lend to each other and Governments had to ask to kick-start inter-banking lending. In Davos recently, the world looked at the imperilled state of the western monetary system with shock, and there is so little faith in paper money that cries are heard for a new Bretton Woods. All that has occurred because of the failure of Governments, economists, the press and the public to recognise the faults in the banking system that were given legitimacy by those early judicial decisions.
	Even today, the Government are striving to save this discredited system with still more legislation that attempts to control the degree to which this fraudulent but legal mechanism can continue to operate. Why are we trying to save a system that, since 1811, has overcome every attempt to harness it? Now is an excellent time to revisit the question of the banking system. We should consider in detail a system to correct the faults that I have identified by creating accounts that do not transfer title to depositors' money from depositors to the banks. Banks must not be allowed to continue to lend depositors' money without the consent of the depositor. This will immediately stop the issuance of two receipts against the same money. Depositors would have to pay for the storage and distribution of their money in accounts and banks would have to compete and earn their income through storage and distribution charges.
	For those who wish to earn an income with their money and who wish banks to invest their savings for them, savings accounts are available. With those actions we can completely remove the duplication of receipts from the banking system and stabilise the money supply. Banks will no longer be able to lend depositors' funds. Depositors' funds will then be safe. There will be no further need for lenders of last resort. Taxpayers will no longer be required to bail out future bank failures and inflation can be halted in its tracks. Can it happen? Yes. Will it happen? That depends on the Government's response. My noble friend Lord Eatwell said, when he opened the debate, that we cannot return to the norm. We will, however, unless the Government grasp the nettle and cease throwing taxpayers' money at a faulty system and stop trying to control the uncontrollable. There can be no better time to act than now.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eatwell on the way in which he introduced it. As he indicated, the situation that the country finds itself in is exceptional. The Government have announced a substantial package of measures to ensure that those facing redundancy and those seeking employment are helped back into work as quickly and successfully as possible. They have encouraged all sectors to play their part. I will focus my brief remarks on what the higher education sector can do and is doing to support the Government's endeavours and emphasise the importance of a high-skill innovation strategy for economic recovery.
	The higher education sector is playing an increasingly important role in helping British businesses to survive the economic downturn and build for the future. Universities and higher education colleges have an unparalleled record in fostering innovation, enterprise and skills and in helping to create wealth and job opportunities. Universities are by their nature long-term organisations. World-class research, the development of a highly skilled workforce, consultancy work and the creation of new ideas, products and industries are all examples of their long-term benefit. They will be crucial in delivering the highly skilled talent that my noble friend Lord Eatwell emphasised. However, this does not mean they have not tried to meet the needs of business and learners in the short term.
	Indeed, Universities UK, in which I declare my interest as chief executive, along with GuildHE and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, produced a leaflet called Standing Together, which highlights the services that universities have to offer business. This includes the use of consultancies within business schools, access to relevant sources of knowledge, and reskilling and upskilling through postgraduate courses, to name just a few. The leaflet, which has been sent to a huge range of business organisations, provides a contact point within each university in the UK so that businesses can go straight to whom and what they need. It has also been sent to Members in both Houses as a signal of the contribution that higher education can make.
	A number of initiatives have been supported by the Government. Knowledge transfer partnerships, supported by the Technology Strategy Board, enable companies to access knowledge and skills from higher education institutions to use in the strategic development of their businesses. I understand that the Technology Strategy Board has agreed to double the amount of KTPs between 2008 and 2011. That should enable a wider coverage of the scheme to include the service sector, which has been hit particularly badly by the downturn. As of March 2008, there were more than 900 live partnerships, with many more in the pipeline.
	Universities already have a track record in supporting business, from developing science and research parks next to university campuses to promoting businesses at the start-up and early development stage in incubation centres. An area where increased government funding is having real effect on the ground is through the Higher Education Innovation Fund. HEIF is a £400 million scheme funded by the English funding council and supports universities and colleges in reaching out to businesses and providing the ideas and skills that are needed for innovation and improved productivity.
	It is often forgotten that higher education institutions are also significant players in their own right within regional economies. Through both direct and knock-on effects, they generated more than £45 billion of output to the UK economy, which is more than the pharmaceutical or aerospace industries. After the NHS, universities are some of the largest employers in a particular town or region and, as such, they are major purchasers of products and services. The Government have said that their departments and agencies should aim to pay small firms within 10 days of the receipt of an invoice. That is something that a growing number of universities are trying to achieve.
	Many universities are involved in building projects to update 1960s infrastructure, with their contractors often working with small firms as subcontractors. Universities are now looking to their contractors to achieve the same turnaround time for invoices and, by bringing forward capital funding planned for 2010-11, the higher education funding councils are helping universities to create or protect hundreds of jobs in construction. Higher education institutions are also responding to fears about a drop in graduate employment by developing a number of schemes, such as creating their own internships for recent graduates, which will provide talent pools for local business and industry. They have introduced graduate start-up schemes, where funding for training and business support is given to graduates to start up a business, and they have improved information, advice and guidance for new graduates entering the job market. That is a clear difference from the last recession; businesses have now learnt that cutting back on graduate recruitment during the downturn costs them a great deal more three years down the line.
	As I mentioned, universities are large employers in their own right. UK higher education institutions employ more than 360,000 people, which equates to 1.2 per cent of total UK employment. That level of employment provides an important lifeline in many areas that have suffered during the economic downturn. However, to continue to maintain this important lifeline, it must also be remembered that public money is necessary to underpin higher education. As we enter a very tight spending review process, whether before or after a general election, I urge Ministers to continue to maintain the unit of funding for teaching and ensure that research excellence is funded wherever it is found. With these two key areas supported, it is then possible to build on the successes of schemes such as knowledge transfer partnerships and the Higher Education Innovation Fund, which have already proved their worth, so that higher education, business and government can work together to ensure that the UK pulls out of the downturn and is well prepared to maximise opportunities for the long-term growth and development of the country.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for initiating this interesting debate. I very much enjoyed his speech, and found interesting the way that he described the measures that were taking place in the USA and his comments on the trade imbalances and the need for exchange rate re-evaluation where there were large surpluses.
	I shall focus mainly on the Government's plans to counter the economic impacts of the financial crisis, as I have more knowledge in this area; I shall leave others to discuss the very important social effects. I wish to look overall at the measures taken by the Government in reaction to the financial crisis.
	It is too early to judge how successful the bank bailouts have been. They were definitely necessary, as the banking system was on the verge of collapse last October. It is clear that at the moment the taxpayer is sitting on a substantial loss from the Government's purchase of RBS shares, which I calculate at being some £10 billion. I wish the Government well on their stimulus packages, but I am uncertain how successful they will be and whether several banks may have to be taken into national ownership.
	There have been a plethora of announcements on bank and business bailouts, but an article in today's Financial Times is interesting, with the headings:
	"Uncertainty over £310bn in support",
	and:
	"Brussels yet to receive submission".
	The article states:
	"The UK has yet to apply to Brussels for the ... approval required for more than £310bn of promised state support for banks and business—in spite of ministers stressing the urgency of the initiatives ... Businesses warned on Wednesday that the delays and uncertainty surrounding the Treasury and Department for Business support packages were exacerbating the effects of the recession.
	Jobs could be lost unnecessarily because of the lack of clarity surrounding the government's proposals, the leading employers' organisation suggested.
	Government packages unveiled last month that support the car industry, lend to business and bail out the banks for the second time cannot be fully implemented without state aid approval for at least some of the elements.
	But the government has yet to submit the notification to the European Commission needed to start the formal approval process for any of the schemes announced recently that need state aid clearance.
	Other elements of the government's recessionary packages are also being hit by delays. The Treasury pledged on January 19 that a £50bn scheme for the Bank of England to buy corporate paper and other assets 'will come into effect from February 2'. But officials told the FT yesterday that a Bank notice on asset purchase this week will be of a 'consultative nature' and the scheme will not start immediately".
	I ask the Minister why the Government are being so slow in implementing their support schemes, which are so vital to the recovery of the economy, and whether all other sectors of the economy, like the motor industry, will be bailed out by the Government.
	On the subjects of uncertainty and the banks, I should highlight two areas where government policy appears to be uncertain and contradictory. The Chancellor on Tuesday, in front of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, is reported by the Financial Times to have suggested that a bad-bank approach might be necessary. Yet, as recently as 19 January, he said that the Government favoured an insurance approach. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, repeated this to me on 27 January. He said that, having reviewed the bad-bank model in considerable detail,
	"we concluded that an asset protection programme, which is sometimes described by the media incorrectly as insurance, was better than a whole purchase of assets—the good bank, bad bank model".—[Official Report, 27/1/09; col. 240.]
	The same confusion has been apparent with the Government's running of Northern Rock. Last year it was aggressively running down its mortgage book, but now the Government have done a U-turn and encouraged it to lend again. Does the Minister agree that there is no consistency to the Government's policy on the banks, which is adding to the general financial crisis?
	The early Northern Rock management style also ran totally contrary to the £200 million mortgage rescue scheme unveiled in the Pre-Budget Report. The Government also appear to be considering quantitative easing. While I accept that this may have to be done, and I emphasise that I am no economist, it seems very risky and shows how bad things have become.
	Next, there have been the Government's fiscal actions. They are planning to stimulate the economy by £20 billion in the short term but raise revenue by around £40 billion in the medium term.
	The lowering of the VAT rate will cost £12 billion in lost revenue and is unlikely to work due to the cautious nature of consumers at present. Leading accountancy firms, Grant Thornton and Ernst & Young, have criticised it. Leading retailers, including the chief executives of Next and Marks & Spencer, have done the same.
	Turning to the Pre-Budget Report, the £3 billion advancement of capital spending seems to be a sensible measure, which I can support.
	I shall now look at the tax-raising measures that the Government are going to adopt to raise their £40 billion. The big question in my mind is: are they doing this too soon? They are making bold assumptions about the timing of the economic recovery but, if these tax rises are badly timed, they could choke off that recovery. They are planning to collect £20 billion by, yet again, increasing their favourite stealth tax: national insurance. The decision has been made to increase the employee, employer and self-employed contribution by 0.5 per cent from April 2011, but surely it is not sensible to tax business further when times will still be difficult. Our party has put forward more sensible measures to give firms hiring workers who have been unemployed for three months relief from their NI contributions. We have also proposed a 1 per cent cut in national insurance for six months for firms with fewer than five employees.
	The Government are planning a top rate of income tax of 45 per cent, thus breaking a promise since 1997 not to increase the top rate. They have temporarily deferred, until April 2010, a rise in the corporation tax rate for smaller companies but they still wish to penalise small businesses at the very time that they need help. What signal does this give to that vital sector of our economy, the smaller business?
	Our party is offering positive measures: it would help those trying to get on to the property ladder with a stamp duty holiday for first-time buyers on house purchases of up to £250,000; it would help old-age pensioners, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, by increasing their tax allowance; and it would help savers with a suggested abolition of the basic rate of tax on savings.
	The Government's plans to counter the economic impact of the current financial situation are in many ways praiseworthy but I am concerned that they are being implemented in a not very timely fashion and, in many ways, they seem to be contradictory.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my dear and noble friend Lord Eatwell on initiating this debate and I also congratulate him on his speech. I start, as he did, with a quote:
	"From time to time in human history there occur events of a truly seismic significance, events that mark a turning point between one epoch and the next, when one orthodoxy is overthrown and another takes its place ... There is a sense that we are now living through just such a time: barely a decade into the new millennium, barely 20 years since the end of the Cold War and barely 30 years since the triumph of neo-liberalism—that particular brand of free-market fundamentalism, extreme capitalism and excessive greed which became the economic orthodoxy of our time ... The global crisis ... has called into question the prevailing neo-liberal economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years—the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem which has now been visited upon us".
	Those words, said in the past week, came from a Labour Prime Minister—not ours, I regret, but Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister.
	The free-market economic consensus of the past 30 years is crumbling around us. We indeed live in changed times that demand radically different solutions. Already, we can see the consequences of economic recession: people losing their jobs; families facing the loss of their homes; household brands going to the wall; more people in poverty; and, this week, the advent of industrial unrest and increased insecurity. On the economy and the future of our wider society in the months ahead, there will be stark and difficult choices for all of us, including those in government.
	However, in all the choices that we make, there can be no going back. We are not in 1979, 1989 or even 1999; this is 2009 and we must never make the same mistakes again. We can no longer afford simply to leave it to the market. Last week in Davos, David Cameron said that we needed a return to a 1980s style "crusade of popular capitalism". However, it was the pursuit of that popular capitalism of the past that led us to the poor regulation that got us into this almighty mess in the first place. Let us not forget that it was that so-called truly popular crusade of capitalism in the 1980s that sold off our council houses without replacing them, that allowed building societies such as Northern Rock to demutualise to their eventual peril on world markets, and that privatised energy utilities, which now exploit their consumers and employees alike. The country is not bankrupt but the mantra of free markets—the neo-liberal economic consensus of the past 30 years, which I am afraid seduced my Government too—is bankrupt.
	I am not against the market but what is government for if it is not to inject the moral component into the market? Just as we witnessed with the Government's intervention in the banking sector—an important step change—we need a wholly different approach to the wider economy.
	This week, following on from the banking crisis, the impact of the recession took an equally ugly turn, with industrial unrest growing across the country. But let us be clear: these strikes are not about xenophobia; they are about global corporations and unfettered free markets gone crazy, and it is that which fundamentally needs to be addressed.
	These new times demand a radically different approach in government economic policy. We cannot simply go back to some so-called golden economic age of increasing consumption, spiralling consumer debt, and cheap and increasingly deregulated labour. What our country needs now more than ever as a response to the economic recession is not a crusade of popular capitalism but a new crusade of popular social democracy. We need a bold new economic consensus which promotes well-being, social justice and environmental sustainability, and which takes our country in a new direction towards the good society. I believe that a good economy can deliver a good society. However, that should not mean nationalising our banks on the one hand and privatising Royal Mail and the Post Office on the other; nor should it mean setting ambitious carbon reduction targets and then building a third runway at Heathrow.
	There are alternatives to the failed neo-liberal economic policies of the past 30 years. There are better ways. When the wealthiest 1 per cent own 21 per cent of the nation's wealth, and when the bottom 50 per cent own just 7 per cent, the good economy should ensure tax justice, greater redistribution of wealth and income equality. It should ensure that those at the top pay their fair share. It should also tackle the irresponsibility culture of the super rich, and that could include a new tax on bonuses, with revenues used to fund tax cuts for those on lower and middle incomes. With millions facing the prospect of unemployment, the good economy should be about embarking on a green New Deal to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in a green industrial revolution and investing in energy for the future. The good economy should be about making sure that businesses pay their fair share of taxes, and we should close loopholes that enable corporations to avoid paying.
	With the biggest banking crisis in our history, the good economy should be about setting up a people's bank, using the existing Post Office network. Now is the time to guarantee every local community access to safe, secure and dependable banking services. We should not be afraid of imposing a maximum APR for loan and credit card companies and ending rip-off credit. Why should companies such as Provident Personal Credit be legally allowed to exploit the poorest in our society and charge 189 per cent APR for a loan of just £50 when the Bank of England base rate is just 1.5 per cent? It is loan sharking and a disgrace.
	We should be ending the gender pay gap in a specified timeframe. The good economy should be about insisting on not just a minimum wage, but a living wage for the entire country, just as we have here in London. We should also insist that all companies awarded government public procurement contracts meet a standard maximum ratio of difference between the most and least well paid among their employees. When the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that child poverty could double in the next decade if we do not find more money to tackle it, the good economy should be about prioritising and finding all the money needed to end child poverty for good.
	With that in mind, we should scrap plans for Trident. Spending £70 billion on a nuclear weapons system designed for the 1980s is not a good use of taxpayers' money. We should immediately scrap plans for ID cards, which could cost £18 billion over the next decade. When 6 million of us are faced with fuel poverty this year, the good economy should be about imposing a windfall tax on the greedy energy and oil companies to ensure social and environmental justice and to raise £6 billion to enable the Government to honour their commitment to end fuel poverty by 2010. On student funding, it is absolutely right for Labour to rule out lifting the cap on fees. We should instead be looking at introducing a graduate tax that is fair to everyone. In the good economy of the future, we should allow councils to build the millions of new social houses that are desperately required.
	The Government need to seize this moment and make the choice fundamentally and radically to renew our country. The opportunity now exists to usher in a new social democratic economic consensus with the values of equality, social justice, security, and sustainability at its heart. If we choose, we can create a good economy and a good society. We can work together to enable greater freedom for all our people by giving real power to the many, not to the few. I hope that we can rise to the challenge.

Lord Bates: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for initiating this debate and for his opening remarks, which I will return to if I can. I want to focus on an area in which I have an interest: the great north-east of England. I declare an interest as I am involved with and a director of a few businesses in that area. They are listed in the Register.
	As I was listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I happened to glance at the speech given by David Cameron in Davos. I tried to find the reference to popular capitalism, but could not. The only thing I could find was a headline, "Capitalism with a conscience". David Cameron said:
	"So I think it's time to update the free market orthodoxy that has dominated the past few decades. It's time to assert a fundamental truth: that markets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Markets are there to serve our society, not to suck the joy out of it or trample over its values. So we must shape capitalism to suit the needs of society; not shape society to suit the needs of capitalism".
	I would have thought that the other side of the House would have applauded those sentiments rather than caricatured them.
	There was much that I agreed with in the opening remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, but he caricatured the Conservative Benches' approach as a do-nothing attitude, a desire to let things take their course. Nothing could be further from the truth. It would appear that, had that been the case, the Labour Government would have been bereft of any initiatives at all because they have been picking up the suggestions of George Osborne and David Cameron at an alarming rate, and we are delighted that they have done so. In fact, David Cameron has said that he wishes we could do more, but unfortunately this country's level of indebtedness restricts us.
	There are a couple of points to be made about the system. I agree that it is fundamentally important and that we need to have some understanding of where risk lies. The response to the Asian financial crisis was obvious: the establishment of the Financial Stability Forum. That set up a range of international financial standards and codes that were to be adhered to by central banks. They covered areas such as central banking principles and monetary and fiscal transparency. Had they been implemented and monitored when they were proposed 10 years ago, perhaps some of the Enron economics that have been occurring on our watch might not have happened. The notion that we could get to a situation where financial derivatives are estimated at $863 trillion—about 16 times the value of the world economy—is clearly ridiculous. We need to get back to some sanity. We need to understand where risk is in the market. That has been the uncertainty, so every measure that can be taken to help the market understand and know exactly where risk is held is going to steady the nerves and stabilise the situation. There are some grounds for optimism in the financial markets, the equity markets and the exchange rate markets. There is a growing feeling among investors that they are beginning to get to the bottom of the level of indebtedness and to where the risk is held.
	I turn to the north-east of England and take probably a counterintuitive view of these things. I have spoken in this House on a few occasions about the tragedy faced by people who are losing their homes. I am particularly concerned about Northern Rock repossessing homes at a rate four times the national average and, despite being in state hands, deciding to award £9 million in bonuses. That is unfair and should have been avoided. I have spoken about the loss of jobs at Nissan and about initiatives that could be put forward to stimulate demand in the car market.
	However, an essential ingredient is missing from this debate. As we talk about economics, accountancy and finance, we must not lose sight of the fact that most organisations and people respond on sentiment, on how they feel about their prospects and the market. There is no doubt that we have moved from a period of irrational exuberance to one of irrational pessimism. As we are pummelled by the media every day with more bad news, we fear that things are worse than they are. Do not get me wrong; I am not saying that things are not bad or that there is not more to come, but although unemployment rates in the north-east of England have risen by 40 per cent over the past year—and I do not want to minimise the tragedy for the people involved—it still means that 90 per cent of people, one million people, are in work. People in work are probably finding that their mortgage payments are lower than they were and their fuel costs have come down. Their disposable income is probably better than a year ago, yet their spending patterns are remarkably different. That is something we need to temper.
	We do not want to return to the credit card, debt-ridden culture of the past, but we need to encourage people to return to normal spending behaviour in the markets. That requires something that does not cost billions: leadership. It is called inspiring people and giving them hope. It is something that people desperately need. We have seen the impact of Barack Obama's election in the United States. It lifted my spirits, and I am in the United Kingdom. It has done immense good globally and in the United States. It shows what leadership can do, what vision can do. Barack Obama was delivering a message captured in the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. He was saying, "Listen. Things are bad; of course things are bad; but we have been through worse". We have been through the great depression of 1919 to 1931, when the economy contracted by 25 per cent. We have been through tough times, including two world wars, but we have come through and we will come through this.
	The question is: what shape of society will we come through with and how can we rebuild our society in a positive way? That sense of optimism and hope is missing in the current public discourse. It may have something to do with the fact that this is the first economic crisis to occur in a media age: 24-hour news demands, consumes and forces things and blows them out of proportion. We need a sense of proportion, a sense of optimism and a sense of hope.
	An initiative has been taken by a regional newspaper in the north-east of England, the Journal. Again, it does not cost billions of pounds. It is just called "Think North East First". No, it is not a call to protectionism; it is simply saying: think about what you can do locally. When you talk to people about trillion-dollar debts and complex derivatives, they feel powerless. You can give people some sense that they can do things to help the local economy by supporting local businesses, buying their food locally, taking their holidays locally, paying their debts to local suppliers on time and encouraging the public sector, which accounts for two-thirds of the economy of the north-east, to ensure that it biases its procurement policy towards the north-east of England. All of those are good, healthy things. Not only do they help local businesses and the local economy, they help the spirit of hope and optimism that we can do something, that sense of community, the sense that we are in this together and can come out of this together stronger.
	We need that sense of hope and optimism, which David Cameron has referred to, that sense of a vision for how the economy can be restructured, but also a sense of reality to come through to our consumers through initiatives such as "Think North East First", practical self-help promotion, optimism-led initiatives. They would do companies and individuals a huge amount of good in the present straitened times.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for introducing this timely and incredibly important debate. To be honest, when I first heard of it I expected that there would be at least double the number of speakers. However, what we have lacked in quantity I suggest that we have more than made up for in quality, although the next few minutes may well throw that assertion into doubt.
	If I may, I shall start with what I hope will be a bit of helpful context. On 20 July 1957, the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, made a speech during which he claimed that we in this country had,
	"never had it so good".
	At the time, the average wage in Britain was £14 a week and the cost of the average house was £2,300—yes, £2,300. Therefore, the average price of a house represented a little more than three times annual income. Last year, the average wage stood at £466.50 per week and the average house cost approximately £225,000, requiring a buyer to stretch to 9.3 times their average annual income to purchase it, well beyond what anyone would have considered prudent 50 years earlier.
	Far more important from the perspective of this debate, government debt at the time at which we had never had it so good stood at 122 per cent of annual GDP. Today, it stands at 47.5 per cent, allowing me to contend that the real problem is not with anticipated levels of government borrowing to support public investment—as an unrepentant socialist, I applaud that—but with the level of unsustainable private debt. At present, that stands at an unprecedented £1.4 trillion, which is £23,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. It is the highest personal debt figure per capita of any of the G7 nations and probably the highest in the world.
	My purpose in straying into what is for me unfamiliar territory is simply to underline the affordable case for very significant levels of government investment in infrastructure—levels that, even a year ago, would have made most of your Lordships' eyes water, and could have induced heart attacks among those ideologically opposed to large-scale government intervention.
	Today, in common with my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lady Kennedy, my single greatest fear is that anyone will be foolish enough to believe that the answer lies in turning the clock back and somehow returning things to the way they were in 2005 or 2006. As I said in a debate in this Chamber last year, a great deal of what was complacently celebrated as success in 2006 was illusory. Much of it has done enormous damage to the objective of what I would see, in every sense, as a sustainable society. In fact, to move forward with confidence and purpose, it will be necessary to all but reinvent ourselves and our entire approach to life, both as consumers and as citizens.
	I started with one Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan. I will go back a little further. In January 1946, just across the square in Central Hall, Westminster, the very first meeting of the nascent United Nations took place. In his welcoming speech, the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, suggested to the delegates that they would succeed in their new venture only if they brought with them the,
	"same sense of urgency, the same self-sacrifice and the same willingness to subordinate sectional interests",
	with which they had fought the recent war. Of course, he was right; he would be just as right today.
	This is not a war. This is self-inflicted, but we are still going to have to get out of it in a very old-fashioned way, by digging inside ourselves and readdressing the basics, by seeking ways to improve our creativity and productivity, by saving more, by studying harder, by doing all the things that we always knew that we had to do but were somehow too ill informed, too complacent or simply too stupid to remember. Successive Governments must accept their share of the blame but, in the end, the truth is unavoidable. As individuals, we have behaved in ways that were mind-numbingly foolish for far too long. In doing so, we have succeeded in wrecking our economy and mortgaging the future of generations yet to be born.
	In hindsight, we made any number of embarrassing misjudgments. We embraced globalisation without remembering that it was a two-way street. We could and should have taken the time to think it through. We could and should have been far smarter about crafting ways to cushion its more harmful effects and to share its benefits far more equitably. As the American commentator Bob Herbert recently put it in the New York Times:
	"We were living in a dream world. The general public, and to a great extent the press, closed its eyes to the increasingly complex and baffling machinations of the financial industry, which kept screaming that oversight would ruin everything".
	If I seem a little angry, it is, rather like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with good reason. As the Minister may remember, for several months last year I was pressing for a very modest amendment to the then Energy Bill. All that I sought was the introduction of a public interest test in the event of significant mergers, takeovers or acquisitions in the energy sector. Why? Because even then you had to be wilfully stupid not to realise that any collapse of a major supplier in that sector would result in a public bail-out. Surely, I argued, if the public are to be the effective guarantor of last resort, they should be offered the security of knowing that the companies that supply their energy are adequately capitalised and run for the public good by decent and honourable people. Should not a reasonable set of checks and balances be in place to ensure that the regulator asked all the right questions and was unambiguously acting in the public interest?
	A casual flick through Hansard will show that in Committee and at Report I was very politely swatted away with phrases that have since taken on an extremely hollow ring. "Disincentivising capital" was one. "Light touch" was another. If I were really cruel, I could go on at some length on the subject, but I shall not. All that ideological claptrap was based on the false and deadly assumption that protecting consumers and individual investors unduly limits profits and hinders financial innovation.
	In fact, the reverse is true. Had processes been put in place to determine the impact on savers of inappropriate financial products and practices, the current crisis may well never have happened. I would be grateful if, in his reply, the Minister would give the House the benefit of his or the Government's thoughts. Perhaps recent events have made him, like me, feel like Boxer the dray horse. Towards the end of George Orwell's Animal Farm—George Orwell has had two mentions this afternoon—Boxer says:
	"I do not understand any of it. I would not have believed that such things could happen on our farm. It must be due to some fault in ourselves".
	Or could we have reached the point in the same book at which no one dares to speak their mind—at least not from the Dispatch Box? That would be tragic, because if there is one thing that the electorate are seeking, it is authenticity in their politicians and a far greater degree of truth in their dealings with one another. That is not the faux truth sought by sections of the media in the hope of winkling out the latest two-bit scandal, or the type of story that one of my favourite political commentators, Matthew d'Ancona, may have been referring to last month when he wrote, of the sensationalist media:
	"This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence and everything to do with our 21st century political culture ... These same forces abhor stability. They feed on precisely the opposite: the twists, turns, sensations and careening shifts in political fortune that keep the story alive".
	At the very moment when we need Barack Obama to be a remarkable success, in exactly the same way that we needed Winston Churchill to be a success in May 1940, the carrion are already circling, in the hope that his fall from grace will sell a few more grubby newspapers. Angry? Yes, I am angry. Why would I or anyone else not be, if our dream is of a society that becomes more deeply human, more satisfying and more hopeful? Not much chance of that with a media environment that abhors stability.
	In conclusion, anyone who has heard me speak in this Chamber over the past 11 years will know that I am almost obsessed with the fragility of British democracy and believe that we take far too much for granted. What have I learnt from these recent crises, both in the country and in your Lordships' House? I have learnt that there is no democracy so strong that it is invulnerable to the greed and ambition of ill motivated men and women. I have been reminded that, to nurture and sustain democracy, its beneficiaries must serve also as its guardians. I think that that was essentially the point made earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It would be hard to blame the people of this country if, over the past week, they had come to the conclusion that this House was unworthy of that responsibility. The way in which parliamentarians of all parties, and both Houses, respond to the present crisis will offer a once-in-a-lifetime chance to prove that we have a political culture worth preserving.

Lord James of Blackheath: My Lords, I was delighted when I saw the wording of today's Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, because it seemed to provide an opportunity to review an aspect of the present crisis that has not been properly discussed: how, when we emerge from this crisis, as in time we shall, will we restore morality and responsibility to the process of lending? I apply those phrases of concern to both borrowers and lenders, and it is to that subject that I will direct my comments today. I declare a couple of interests from the past. I worked for Lloyds Bank on two occasions, with a 30-year interval, and for the Ford Motor Company. I shall draw on those experiences as I go.
	I have now been working for 53 years. I went to work for the first time in the week when Jim Laker took 19 wickets to win the Ashes in 1956. I should have recognised then that life could only go downhill, and it has. I did not expect it to go quite this far downhill, but I suppose that Lloyds Bank would say the same, as I was working for it at the time. I have seen seven recessions in the course of my career—one every seven and a half years. I strongly believe that in every recession something that is done with good intent by the Government sows the seeds of the next recession. I commented on this for the first time in the Bradford & Bingley debate, when I said that the draconian hire purchase control orders that had been introduced by Mr Harold Wilson's first Government, in October 1964, which required a 50 per cent deposit and 18 months to pay, had brought about the nationalisation and ultimate demise of the British motor industry. One can only hope sincerely that the present Government do a better job of running nationalised banks than Mr Wilson did of running a nationalised motor industry.
	When we look at the consequences that flowed from that, we see that it was those seeds that led to our present catastrophe. People thought, "We have these dreadful control orders that have ruined the motor industry; we must never let this happen again". The cross-party concern to do something about it—this is not a party-political point—led to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. We forget today that the Act effectively outlawed secured lending. That is where we destroyed the morality connection between lending and what you do with the money that you have borrowed. Instead of purchasing a direct asset and knowing, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the price of the thing and its value, we ended up knowing the price of it but not being concerned with its value. We could use the money not to buy intrinsic assets like motor cars and things that we needed to enhance our lives—"Take the waiting out of wanting" is a phrase that still makes me feel ill when I hear it today; instead, we could use the unsecured fountain of credit flowing from the banks to buy packets of white powder, set up a mistress or pay gambling debts. We have never recovered that connection and we have had a massive amount of borrowing, driven by rising house prices.
	Recently, we had an excellent debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on the future of the motor industry, which still employs 910,000 people in this country. There is an opportunity here for the Government. They should look seriously at the repeal or suspension of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the reintroduction of the principle of secured lending. Think of the advantages. First, there would be a direct incentive for the banks to start lending again, on a secured basis, which would remove from the Government much of the responsibility for giving the guarantees that they are giving to the banks. Secondly, it would give a direct impetus to the stimulation of British manufacturing industry, which we desperately need. Thirdly, it would restore the morality of buying what you want in the certain knowledge of what it will cost, and forming a view as to its value for you. There is real merit in looking at the repeal of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as a way of leading the flock back to the ways of responsibility and morality in how to use credit. The point is worth considering and I hope that the Government will have a hard think about it.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for initiating this debate. I was not so grateful when he first tabled the Motion last week—an extremely busy week, with economic debates of various sorts—as I was rather looking forward to a day when we would not be foregathering to discuss the economy. But today's debate has taken us beyond the ones we have had on what I was going to call the "sterile" details of the Banking Bill. That is a slight exaggeration, but not much of one. This has been a very interesting debate.
	In many respects, all the speakers have coalesced around a common analysis. There is an acceptance that it is difficult to overestimate the scale of the downturn and the extent to which we will have to do things differently. There is, as many speakers have said, a growing consensus about the kind of society that we would like to see. Who said the following last week, for example, and who among today's speakers would disagree with it?
	"So this is what too many people see when they look at capitalism today. Markets without morality. Globalisation without competition. And wealth without fairness. It all adds up to capitalism without a conscience and we've got to put it right. Business helping to create a society that is greener, safer, fairer—and where opportunity is more equal. Business helping to create a society that is more family-friendly, where responsibility and power are decentralised, and where we value and build up the institutions of the public realm and civic society".
	Who said that? It was David Cameron.
	The other area of consensus today is that we look to Barack Obama to lead in a way that we have not seen from America in recent times. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—somewhat surprisingly, I thought—said "God bless Obama". The noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about Obama's success in instilling a sense of hope where otherwise there is fear. I do not want to break up the consensus we have seen up to now, so all I will say is that although Conservative policies attempt to a certain extent to reflect what David Cameron said, in terms of a fiscal stimulus they certainly do not, and in terms of supporting what Obama is trying to do, they also certainly do not. The Conservatives have a major job on their hands in seeking to reconcile the heady rhetoric with the backward-looking policies. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, talked about turning the clock back. Some of the rhetoric from the Conservatives in terms of fiscal stimulus has, to my mind, been seeking to do exactly that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, identified three major consequences of the downturn, the first of which is unemployment. We know that it is going to rise very significantly whatever steps the Government take in the short term. What is particularly depressing is that unemployment will rise most in those parts of the country which have traditionally had high levels of unemployment and where over the decades Governments have sought to put in place measures, instruments and institutions to redress regional imbalances. An interesting report published last week identifies Hull, Liverpool and Belfast among the cities most likely to see the highest levels of job losses. The only thing stopping the unemployment rate in the north-east rising even more quickly is the very high level of public sector employment there, providing a natural cushion above which unemployment rates cannot go. Here the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is so important. In the northern cities that I mentioned, as well as in Newcastle and Leeds—I declare an interest in that I have a son at the University of Leeds—there is a substantial subsidisation by students from the south who bring their purchasing power with them. That will in itself have a minor cushioning effect on unemployment. We are in for a very bad time in terms of unemployment, and we need to expend maximum effort, not only at the university level but at every level, to up-skill our people. We debated that issue many times following the Leitch report. All I can say is that we must retain a focus on it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about housing, particularly the threat of repossession, which is a major problem. An equal if not greater problem is that the housing sector is in almost total collapse. Large private builders borrowed huge sums and are literally on the verge of collapse. Almost every listed builder is in that situation. At the other end, the housing associations also borrowed huge sums to build mixed-use developments in which the private sector component was to fund social housing. Unfortunately they cannot sell the private sector component to fund the social housing one, so they, too, are in huge difficulties. Although this is not the day for a detailed debate on housing, I believe that the institutions through which we seek to manage particularly social housing are completely unfit for purpose. The Housing Corporation is slow and bureaucratic, and, as I say, the whole system is in real jeopardy. We need the impetus of a new institution to take a grip on the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about a special resolution regime for housing. Perhaps that is what I have in mind. We may need a new title for the proposal, but it is definitely required.
	The noble Lord also talked about pensions, an immensely complicated issue. However, what is absolutely certain is that the private sector will not be able to afford the kind of pension provision that it has made in the past, and this will inevitably mean a growing disparity in pension provision between the private and the public sectors. As that is both politically and morally unsustainable, I fear that we will have to take a lot of hard decisions on pensions.
	Everyone seems to be in favour of rebalancing the economy, and I absolutely agree that what is good for the City is not necessarily good for the UK. Equally, however, the City will be part of the solution, just as it has been a large part of the problem. Let us look at what we do best. I turn to the old economic question of where we have comparative advantage. The answer is that it still is in financial services, despite all the problems. We have not only a sophisticated financial services system, despite its many flaws and unacceptable greed, but also a regulatory system that, despite its flaws, is significantly better than almost anywhere else in the world. The City must be part of the solution.
	However, we must also expend much more effort in encouraging our children and young people to believe that the highest attainment one can reach in life is not necessarily to be a banker. I know of children from poor backgrounds who have been the best in their class, the best in their school and the best at university, and what is it that they aspire to? They want to work for Lehman Brothers. I know of one individual, the pride of his family, who did that; he is not there any more, of course. To me it is a sadness that he thought that working for Lehman Brothers was the best thing you could possibly do in life. Part of the rebalancing should be to promote other forms of occupation where the contribution one can make is rather larger than even as a merchant banker.
	Today's debate has demonstrated what a wide range of issues we are going to have to fundamentally re-examine. I look forward to contributing in the months ahead to debates in your Lordships' House on those revisions and reviews.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on securing this debate. I do not want to damage the noble Lord's reputation with his Benches, but I have to say that for the second time this week I agree with quite a lot of what he has said. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we have had an interesting debate on the economy which has introduced some new angles that I was not expecting. I single out the contributions of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord James for their lateral thinking.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, it was only last week that we had a debate on the Pre-Budget Report and gave a good airing to the Government's economic policies. I will not repeat what I said then at length, save to say that we believe that many of our economic woes are of the Government's own making. We enter the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world, and we have done less since 1997 to reduce debt and borrowing than most other countries. The IMF, the OECD and the EU have all in their own ways warned that countries like ours, which have entered the recession with shaky public finances, do not have the same range of opportunities available in terms of action to stimulate their economies compared with those countries with healthier economies.
	I start here because our weak position reduces the Government's scope for action. The cost of the Pre-Budget Report, including its fiscal stimulus, is a massive expansion of debt to more than £1 trillion, which as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, could take until 2030 to unwind and will involve tax hikes or expenditure reductions of £20 billion. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, suggested that my honourable friend George Osborne has advocated a balanced Budget, which he has not done for the short term. We accept that the automatic stabilisers will increase debt in the short term, but we do say that because we have a weak economy, we have to fund any additional stimulus out of reducing wasteful expenditure. We also say that we have to reduce our debt. On this we are on all fours with Germany, which accompanied—

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Can she explain how a stimulus is funded by a cut in expenditure?

Baroness Noakes: Yes, my Lords, because there is wasteful expenditure. We have never suggested cutting front-line services but we have said that there is waste. I challenge any noble Lord to say that there is no waste in public expenditure that cannot be cut out.

Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness was not asked whether there was any waste; she was asked to outline an economic analysis that explains how cutting waste finances an expansionary public expenditure policy. I know of no economics that could possibly lead her to that conclusion.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall have to give the noble Lord a private version of how we would do that. We shall arrange a seminar for the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
	As I was saying, we are in line with Germany which accompanied its fiscal stimulus with a constitutional amendment to ensure that it reduced its debt. We are with Germany on that.
	The VAT cut was supposed to be the centrepiece of the fiscal stimulus but it has had no discernible effect on retail sales. It is not even clear that it is always being passed on, especially by retailers who have price point policies that cannot accommodate reductions of 2.1276 per cent, which is what the reduction amounts to. It is difficult to see what is happening on the ground with the acceleration of capital expenditure. There are many stories of projects being frozen, not accelerated.
	Oxford Economics produced a report on the impact of the fiscal stimulus. It shows an initial positive impact on GDP of 0.4 per cent in 2009, but this is more than outweighed as both VAT and capital spending unwind from 2010 and the tax rises and national insurance increases already announced start to bite from 2011.
	Its analysis is even worse for jobs. It calculates that the fiscal stimulus will save 35,000 jobs—which is a drop in the ocean because we are losing more than that monthly at the moment—but the package in the PBR then produces a reduction in employment of 200,000, and that is on top of the natural effect of the recession. This is why many commentators are now talking about unemployment going well over 3 million.
	There is understandable concern about those who have lost their jobs and we of course support the Government's efforts to assist those who find themselves without work in a job market where vacancies are shrinking at a record rate. One of our policies was for a £2,500 tax rebate for firms which take on people who have been unemployed for three months, which is not a million miles away from the proposals that the Government have recently announced.
	We also support policies which help people to stay in their homes where that makes economic sense. Unfortunately, that will not always be the case. We are concerned that the Government's homeowner mortgage support scheme, announced in a flurry of headlines late last year, will not do much. The mortgage industry remains deeply concerned about the details, the practicality and the cost of the Government's proposals, and the scheme is not yet available on the ground to help anyone.
	We do not support the calls from some companies and trade unions for subsidies to keep people in jobs. That way lies market distortion and a subsidy dependence habit which would be difficult to break. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says on this.
	When he replies, I hope he will address also the issue of hidden employment. The number of young people not in employment, education or training, the so-called NEETs, has risen by nearly 100,000 in the past four years. More young people are facing the start of their working lives without jobs and, in the current environment, the number will increase. This will cause more economic and social problems down the line, but we have not heard of any policies to deal with that.
	At the end of the day, the best thing the Government can do for the economy and society is to create an environment in which businesses can succeed. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, was right to emphasise the needs of businesses, particularly small businesses. We need businesses, not public sector employment, to provide sustainable jobs. Businesses will need help if they are to survive the recession. My noble friend Lord Bates emphasised, in an original way, that hope and optimism was one of the ways in which help can come to local businesses. We want to help them to save jobs—not necessarily all the ones that they currently have but those that will provide long-term employment. We will certainly support anything that the Government bring forward to that end, but we do not think that their policies go far enough.
	As has been referred to in the debate, getting credit restored is a big but essential task, but the Government are not yet succeeding in that. Bank rescue 1 did not do the job; bank rescue 2 has a lot more complicated elements to it, but the Treasury Select Committee in another place has said that the government response may not be adequate.
	As my noble friend Lord Northbrook pointed out, these policies are taking a long time to be delivered on the ground. For example, the asset protection scheme was revealed to the world in a form which was almost unformed and it still does not exist.
	Our £50 billion national loan guaranteed scheme proposals are simpler and less bureaucratic than the Government's schemes. We also propose credit guarantee insurance in order to support non-bank credit. We have heard nothing from the Government on that. We propose that small businesses should be allowed to defer their VAT payments for six months and we would not increase their national insurance contributions as the Government plan. We plan a permanent reduction in the small companies' corporation tax rate to 20 per cent to give those businesses greater planning certainty.
	Before I conclude, I should like to turn to the issue of savers, as did my noble friend Lord Eccles. While we have been having this debate, the base rate has been reduced to 1 per cent and the plight of savers is extreme. This particularly affects pensioners, but pension credit does not take up the slack. We have policies specifically designed to help savers, in particular to take them out of the basic rate of tax and to increase age allowances. The Government have merely suggested that they might think about it in the Budget.
	The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, calls attention to the Government's policies to counter the social and economic effect of the financial situation. We on these Benches are not sure that the Government's policies stand up to close scrutiny. Until the needs of business, without which we cannot have jobs or economic prosperity, are fully dealt with, we will continue to have the gravest fear for our economic and social future.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eatwell on securing the debate and, even more, on his speech, which ranged broadly but accurately across all the big challenges which the Government face in dealing with the extremely difficult economic position. In responding to the debate, it is important that we follow the pattern set by my noble friend, both looking at how the Government can help to reduce the deleterious impacts on people in need in our communities while addressing ourselves to the international crisis, which is reflected and which occasioned the problems in the banking industry and, subsequently, in the wider economy.
	We live in difficult times. We are facing unprecedented global challenges, caused initially by failures in the US banking sector, and we require global solutions to them. This is why the UK is leading the response of developed nations to the underlying problem of decreased credit flow within our economies. We must remember that behind the headlines of rising unemployment and struggling businesses, real people are suffering. We must do everything we can to help in the coming weeks and months to minimise the effects of this global situation on families and on businesses in our economy. This help includes additional support from the moment someone is made redundant, which increases the longer they are unemployed; help to pay the mortgage and to avoid repossession, issues which have featured in the debate; help with retraining and developing skills; and a range of changes to tax and benefit levels to help people cope during the downturn.
	As has been recognised in the House by the sombre approach to these issues, it appears that the worst is still to come, and we know that unemployment is destined to grow and more jobs will be lost. However, through strong and proactive leadership the UK is well prepared to make sure that the downturn is as shallow and as short as possible. We are coming from an unprecedented period of sustained growth and low inflation and we start from the second lowest unemployment rate in the G7—only Japan has a lower rate than ours. Of course we have to address ourselves to minimising growing unemployment in this country but we should recognise the strength of the position from which we start. My noble friend Lord Eatwell outlined aspects of the fiscal boost necessary to support the economy at present. I was enjoined by my noble friends Lord Peston and Lady Kennedy in rather more extensive terms that it would be necessary for the Government to spend in order both to boost the economy in this downturn and to deal with those who potentially will suffer greatly.
	That is why £900 million has been made available to pay pensioners, carers and others a £60 one-off payment on top of the annual Christmas bonus; £1.4 billion has been provided for a £145 tax cut for basic-rate taxpayers; £380 million has been devoted to increasing child benefit and child tax credit; and we have brought forward £3 billion of infrastructure spending to create and protect jobs and support the economy now. My noble friend Lord Puttnam discussed the energy matter. I will come to his specific point a little later, but he will know that we have put a £1 billion package of energy-efficiency measures into operation, with more than 11 million of the most vulnerable households qualifying for these free of charge. Reference has also been made to the problems of savers and we all recognise that low interest rates mean that returns for savers are low, but the national saving gateway scheme will from 2010 provide an additional incentive for those on a low income to save and 8 million people will be eligible.
	Since 1997, households are on average £1,250 a year better off in real terms. The poorest fifth of families with children are £4,100 better off and the poorest third of pensioners are £2,100 better off. My noble friend Lord Peston identified that we have to make sure that we concentrate on the most vulnerable, particularly the poorest in our community. I put it to him that over the past decade the Government have shown their clear ability and determination to deal with these issues. Even during this downturn we have made it quite clear that aspects of our fiscal boost in terms of benefits and support for the less well-off in the economy will be accentuated.
	The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, introduced the issues of small businesses and he was supported subsequently by others who contributed to this debate. Of course the Government are concerned about the issues of small businesses. That is why very great efforts have been made to increase the flow of credit, and measures were announced some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, directed towards the assistance of small businesses because we know their particular vulnerability at this time of economic downturn.
	For larger businesses, too, access to credit has been at the root of the problem. Support for the motor industry is not an aid package; it is support for an important industry which, as several noble Lords clearly identified, not only provides very substantial numbers of jobs in this country but is at the centre of research and development and high-value-added products. That is why it is important that we look at how we can support the motor industry during this period and why the package was announced.
	We also have the very pressing matter of unemployment. It is clear that unemployment is destined to rise. We are investing heavily in a system of support through Jobcentre Plus. The UK still has a highly dynamic labour market. It is well publicised that unemployment rose by 78,000 last month, passing the 1 million mark. What is less well publicised is the fact that more than 230,000 people came off jobseeker's allowance in the same period. Claims are up but so is the rate at which people are leaving benefit in contrast to the falls seen in the 1980s. Maintaining this trend will be a key factor in the UK's ability to minimise the impact of the downturn on those who will ultimately suffer, unlike in previous recessions, when people were left to slide into long-term unemployment. I am grateful for noble Lords' contributions, including that of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, which identified previous recessions that were far less global and serious than this one in which a Conservative Government presided over a very high rate of unemployment and were neglectful of the policies which might have minimised that. We are investing in those areas to minimise the impact of unemployment.
	I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Warwick about the skills improvement that we need in our economy. We know the universities have a crucial role to play at the higher level of skills. The House will appreciate the increased expenditure over this past decade in all sectors of education, including the universities, and the doubling of expenditure in that sector which is particularly related to skills—further education. That together with the more than doubling of the number of apprenticeships in this country reflect the fact that the Government have been concerned to improve the capacity of the economy to develop so that Britain can earn its living in the world and not be totally or excessively dependent, as has been contended in this debate, on aspects of the financial sector.
	There is not the slightest doubt that we have a very big task to do. Although the Opposition produce some detailed responses to different ways of spending money effectively in the economy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, places great emphasis on the ability to reduce waste—my noble friend Lord Peston made his point on that—I am not sure just how much of a stimulus that would provide. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right to pick up the theme which started this debate, which is that we need an international response. There is no doubt that we are in unprecedented circumstances. That is why returning to the rubrics of the past will not do. A fresh approach to the nature of the global economy is clearly needed. Within this framework the Conservative Party is distant from the argument and the British Government have a crucial role to play.
	The Chancellor has written to members of the G20 outlining British objectives for the important meeting that will take place in April, which will set the pattern for the future. The objectives are clear—we need to return trust and confidence in financial markets and we need to reform and build on the benefits that open financial markets bring to the world economy—but we need to reduce the likelihood of systemic failures in the financial services industry and to prepare better for failure within financial markets. We need also to increase the efficiency of the operation of financial markets so that they perform better in their tasks of capital allocation, and we will need increased regulation.
	That is a perspective that the major countries of the world will be asked to respond to, and to which they will bring their own constructive strategies on how those objectives are to be realised. One thing stands out, though: from President Obama's United States to the major European countries and the rest of the world, a substantial fiscal boost is necessary. It is clear that Governments have to spend because there is a collapse in demand in all these economies, and only government can provide the response that generates that demand. For the Opposition to sustain their criticism of details of the Government's strategy, while not being prepared to sign up to the concept of the fiscal boost of the size that we are anticipating and intend to implement, is to be out of step with the major economies of the world and not to address the real issue of how we restore the health of this economy. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said at the beginning of the debate, and this was reinforced in a number of speeches, it is necessary for the Government to act in this way.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that his approach was that of a Burkean Conservative. There do not seem to be too many of those in the Conservative Party at present; as I understand it, Burke represented the responsibility of those with power and resources to take care of the wider community. In the modern day and age, that can be interpreted in only one way: it must mean, if not big government, then government big enough to act and prepared to look at the global picture and to take the initiative. The Government alone can produce the strategies that will give businesses the resources they require, and will reform the financial system on the basis of a number of recommendations that have been made in this debate. I appreciated the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I will look again at the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord James. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also spoke in detailed terms on these points, and we will look at that—within the framework that the Government have to create. We have to make resources available within the economy.
	That is the difference between the positions taken by the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition, and it came through clearly in this debate. I maintain that, against a background where it is clear that the Government need to look after the vulnerable, ensure that the banking system provides businesses with the resources they require and, above all, act on the international stage to find global solutions to global problems, the Government are showing that we intend to fulfil those obligations. I thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell for identifying constructive ways to meet those responsibilities.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to write to me on some of the queries he did not have time to cover in his address?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord in these debates. He speaks in broad terms while asking highly specific questions. I am conscious of the fact that in limited time it is difficult to deal with very specific questions, but I will write to him.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, will the Minister address the question I put to him? Can I take it that the phrase "light touch" has now been expunged from the Government's vocabulary in favour of "appropriate and effective regulation"?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it has certainly been expunged from my vocabulary in the sense that I have not used the term and I am not going to be tempted into using it now. I know my noble friend will press for a great deal more effective regulation with regard to energy supply; he made that point on several occasions in the previous two energy Bills of substance that the House has considered. He will appreciate that I opened this debate by saying that we live in challenging and, indeed, changing times, and a lot of rethinking has to be done.

Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am not going to make any attempt to summarise, answer or conclude in any way. As I said at the beginning—this was a theme, I hope, of what I had to say—we are in a learning environment. We do not have a road map to guide us through the current turmoil, and the learning process can be shared by all.
	I have a couple of comments on the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. First, study after study has shown that the least effective way of stimulating business is cutting business taxes. The most effective way is to use the same resources to stimulate demand. The stimulation and stabilisation of demand, providing an environment where people spend and firms can sell, is much better than cutting taxes in an environment where firms have no market at all.
	Secondly, I understand the enormous difficulty under which the noble Baroness labours, because I used to be the opposition spokesman on Treasury and economic affairs. One always has to strike the difficult balance between criticising the Government and not talking down the economy, and the Opposition have got the balance wrong. The continuous harping on the weakness of the British economy is a caricature of our current financial position. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, that more optimism, confidence and positive views would go a very long way. I repeat my position: the risks involved in doing too much are as nothing compared with the risks of doing too little. I reiterate my view that the Government are being too cautious.
	I look forward to the opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to go forward to the G20, and I hope we have the opportunity to do so at a later date. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
	Motion withdrawn.

Binyam Mohamed
	 — 
	Statement

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, with your permission, I shall now repeat a Statement on Binyam Mohamed made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
	"With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement to the House on the case of Mr Binyam Mohamed, following the judgment handed down yesterday in the High Court.
	The fundamentals of the case are as follows. Mr Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, formerly resident in the UK, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002. In 2004 he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Until August 2007 the Government had taken responsibility for the release and return of British nationals from Guantanamo Bay. In August 2007, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I wrote to the US Secretary of State to seek Mr Mohamed's release from Guantanamo Bay and his return to the United Kingdom, along with four other former UK residents. Over the last 18 months, we have mounted what the court has called a strenuous effort to secure that objective. We have throughout kept Mr Mohamed's family and lawyers informed of his situation and our efforts to resolve it.
	The United States brought terrorist charges in May of last year against Mr Mohamed before a military commission. Mr Mohamed subsequently brought proceedings against the British Government in an effort to secure the disclosure to his legal counsel of any material held by the British Government that might assist in the defence of his case before the military commission. Having looked through all the material we held across government, we provided through the appropriate legal and statutory mechanisms a great deal of both classified and unclassified UK information. Among the information we held, however, we also identified some highly classified US intelligence material. We took the view that the material was potentially exculpatory and ought to be disclosed to Mr Mohamed's legal counsel. As this was sensitive US government material, we informed the relevant US authorities of our view. We also informed Mr Mohamed's counsel. We have worked since then to ensure that all the material was indeed made available to Mr Mohamed's legal counsel by the US Government through their own procedures.
	Across the four judgments handed down by our High Court since August of last year, the court has explicitly recognised the efforts of the Government both to secure Mr Mohamed's release and return and to ensure that the material that we considered ought to be disclosed to him was indeed disclosed. This latter objective was achieved some time ago when the US Department of Justice disclosed the material to Mr Mohamed's counsel in the course of proceedings in the US federal courts.
	At the heart of Mr Mohamed's case have been allegations that he was tortured by foreign government officials in a number of locations. It is of course the long-standing policy of the Government that we never condone, authorise or co-operate in torture. I repeat that commitment today. We take seriously all allegations of torture and investigate them fully. Allegations have been made in the course of these legal proceedings that the UK is in some way complicit in the alleged mistreatment of Mr Mohamed. Following the court's judgment of 22 October, on 23 October my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred the question of possible criminal wrongdoing to the Attorney-General. This is now being considered by the Attorney-General. This is, as the court acknowledged, the proper democratic and legal process.
	Yesterday's judgment was not about that. It was about whether an English court should, in the interests of public debate and understanding, order the disclosure to the general public of sensitive foreign intelligence shared with our own intelligence agencies on the strict understanding that it would not be released.
	As anyone who has read the judgments will appreciate, in circumstances in which Mr Mohamed's access to the information relevant to his defence had been secured, the sole question for my consideration concerned the publication of classified material received from a foreign intelligence agency.
	The question at issue was whether intelligence provided on a confidential basis by one state to another—in absolute trust that it will be kept secure—may be disclosed to the public by order of a foreign court, or whether instead the breach of trust would be so grave as to endanger intelligence-sharing relationships and therefore affect national security. In this case it was US intelligence and an English court but it could just as easily be British intelligence in a foreign court.
	I had before me the clear and unanimous advice of all key UK departments and agencies. As the court observed yesterday:
	"Intelligence is shared on the basis of a reciprocal understanding that the confidence in and control over it will always be retained by the State that provides it. It is a fundamental part of that trust and confidentiality which lies at the heart of the relationship with foreign intelligence agencies".
	Our intelligence relationship with the United States is vital to the national security of the United Kingdom. It is essential that the ability of the United States to communicate such material in confidence to the UK is protected; without such confidence it will simply not share that material with us. The same applies to our intelligence relationships with all those who share intelligence information with us. What applies to them also applies to us. We share intelligence with a large number of countries. We do so to protect British citizens and on the basis that the material will not be put into the public domain against our wishes. To state the obvious, were our own classified information to be disclosed in such a way, it could compromise our work, our sources and our security.
	It therefore was, and remains, my judgment that the disclosure of the intelligence documents at issue by order of our courts against the wishes of the US authorities would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country. For the record, the United States authorities did not threaten to "break off" intelligence co-operation with the UK. What the United States said—it appears in the open documents of this case—is that the disclosure of these documents by order of our courts would be,
	"likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing between our two governments".
	That is a simple affirmation of the facts of intelligence co-operation. It is worth noting that last night, in response to the High Court's judgment, the US National Security Council reaffirmed the long-standing US position concerning the importance of protecting sensitive national security information and preserving the long-standing intelligence-sharing relationship between our two countries.
	The court has concluded that there is no prejudice to Mr Mohamed's case as a result of yesterday's judgment. The information in question is available to his US legal counsel. As the court said,
	"upholding the rule of law ... is most unlikely to depend on making the information public".
	The issue at stake is not the content of the intelligence material but the principle at the heart of all intelligence relationships: that a country retains control of its intelligence information and that it cannot be disclosed by foreign authorities without its consent. That is a principle we neglect at our peril".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I say with confidence that all sides of your Lordships' House believe that no British Government should participate in or condone torture under any circumstances and that the due process of law should be upheld and followed in all cases. The case of Binyam Mohamed raises serious questions about both these principles. I want to ask the Minister about three things: first, Binyam Mohamed's detention at Guantanamo Bay; secondly, the allegation that UK security and intelligence officials have been complicit in torture; and, finally, how these issues bear on our important intelligence relationship with the United States.
	The Minister outlined the facts of Binyam Mohamed's detention by US authorities and the case that they brought against him. All sides of your Lordships' House support the new Administration's decision to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. Since August 2007, the Government have sought Mr Mohamed's return to the UK. To date, the US has declined to release him. What is the basis for the request for his release and what was the basis for his return being denied? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are still continuing to seek the return of Mr Binyam Mohamed? Also, in the light of the Administration's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, can he tell us if they have indicated whether they will now accede to the Government's request? If the Government are still seeking the return of Mr Mohamed to this country, what assessment have they made about the threat to public security that his return could present?
	Let me turn to the allegations that Binyam Mohamed had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that security officials from this country were complicit in this. In August last year, a High Court ruling found that,
	"by seeking to interview",
	Binyam Mohamed,
	"in the circumstances described and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing".
	It also said that the security services had facilitated interviews with Binyam Mohamed "in the knowledge" of what had been reported to them about his treatment and conditions of detention. Yesterday's ruling confirmed that, in the court's view, Mr Mohamed had an arguable case that he had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said in another place, if such torture has occurred, it is absolutely wrong. I understand that the Government raised the allegations of torture with the US Government and asked them to investigate. Can the Minister say whether this investigation is complete and will he tell your Lordships' House about the outcome?
	In a letter dated 29 September last year to Mr David Lidington, the then Minister of State in the FCO, Dr Kim Howells, said that the Government rejected the allegation that security and intelligence officials from this country were complicit in torture. But given the anxieties displayed by the court on this very point, can the Minister confirm the definition of "complicity" in the Government's language? The High Court ruling from last August contains an extract of a letter sent to a UK security official. The letter said that, as the detainee in question was,
	"not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent",
	treatment that is not in accordance with appropriate standards. That might legally be the case but, morally, should not the Government have made the strongest possible representations to the US about poor treatment? Were any such representations made?
	How does the Government's position that security and intelligence officials were not complicit in torture square with referring the matter of possible criminal wrongdoing to the Attorney-General? When does the Minister expect the Attorney-General's investigations to be completed?
	Finally, I should like to look briefly at the bearing that this has on the important intelligence relationship with the United States. The Minister is right to say that our intelligence relationship with the US is vital to our national security—no argument. He is also right to say that, by convention, the sensitive information of another country is not and should not be publicly disclosed without that country's permission. This is well established practice.
	On the basis of their understanding of statements made to them by FCO officials, in their High Court ruling the judges said that,
	"the United States Government's position is that, if the redacted paragraphs are made public, then the United States Government will re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the United Kingdom with the real risk that it would reduce the intelligence provided".
	Can the Minister confirm that the US Government made such representations and related them to this case? The statement of the National Security Council in Washington, which was quoted by the Minister when he repeated the Statement, appears to me to be a restatement of the general position only.
	When there is a suggestion of wrongdoing, we have to try to find a way through. It is also important that the public should have trust in the integrity of the UK/US intelligence relationship. So does the Minister accept that the Government must do everything in their power to enable the release of the information without prejudicing our relationship?
	Yesterday the Prime Minister's spokesman said that Downing Street had "not engaged" with the new Administration on the detail of the case. If that is correct, will the Minister say when such engagement will take place? Given the new Administration's position on extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay and torture, would it not be worth checking with the White House whether it cannot, in this important instance, help to find a way through by ordering release? Even if complete release would be prejudicial to national security, could at least some of the redacted details be made public by separating them from sensitive intelligence information, thus aiding the court?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for the first time. I have had a professional relationship with her for a little less than 40 years and I have great respect for her judgment.
	This is clearly an interim Statement; the saga will continue for some time. I think that we can look forward, not with an enormous amount of enjoyment, to the bits of information about extraordinary rendition that will slip out in one way or another, in Washington, London and elsewhere, over the next two or three years.
	We on these Benches of course accept the importance of the US/UK intelligence relationship, the crucial element that mutual trust plays in that relationship and the importance of maintaining it. However, this seems an extraordinary circumstance in which the United States, in a hangover from the Bush Administration, appears to have pleaded national security from what I understand, if I have read the report of the judgment correctly—I tried to read through that lengthy document at some speed an hour ago—are just seven paragraphs providing the full details of the alleged torture and relating to the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and his treatment while he was held. I am quoting the BBC to some extent. That does not seem to me to be central to the national security of the United States or of Britain; it seems to be a matter of political embarrassment to the outgoing Administration.
	Many of us listened to President Obama's inauguration speech and heard him say:
	"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals".
	This is an area that we need to probe further. It is in the interests of the new US Administration to be as open as possible about the details of the alleged torture and the circumstances in which Mr Mohamed was held.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, I noted with some unease the phrase in the Statement "possible criminal wrongdoing" and the issue of UK complicity. I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government will continue to push vigorously to uncover the extent to which we have been engaged.
	We on these Benches, as the Minister will know, are constantly uneasy about the extent to which Her Majesty's Government approach relations between the United States and Britain from a perspective of dependence, asking the United States to give us what we want without recognising that we also have considerable assets to offer. Indeed, in the intelligence relationship, GCHQ is of value to the United States, and Menwith Hill is of considerable value.
	Diego Garcia is also of very considerable value to US defence. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is, of course, more to come out on Diego Garcia. We talk about the importance of maintaining trust and confidentiality. All the information that has come out on Diego Garcia has slipped out to the newspapers in Washington. It has, incidentally, undermined what Ministers have said in this House and another place on the non-use of Diego Garcia for extraordinary rendition. Can the Minister reassure us that, as more of this story continues to slip out, little by little, one way or another, the Government will ensure—as far as possible and within the terms of a continuing mutually assured intelligence relationship with the United States—that we do not compromise the rule of law and our commitment to our ideals?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, observes that it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. To respond to her is more of a challenge, as she is obviously expert in this area. I therefore attempt to respond to her with some humility and anxiety, since she knows far more about these issues than I do. I start with her first question, on Guantanamo. We continue to press for Mr Mohamed's return from Guantanamo as vigorously as before and we very much hope that we will be successful. As to whether his return would be a threat to public security, I assure her that, as she well knows, the UK authorities would not do anything that was prejudicial to our national security.
	The noble Baroness's second question was whether UK agencies, or individuals in those agencies, were complicit in torture. Because of the ruling of the court last year, the Home Secretary felt that it was absolutely necessary to refer the matter to the Attorney-General to make sure that this had, indeed, been fully investigated and that the rights of both the individual and, more broadly, British freedoms and the rule of law had been fully respected in this case. Equally, because of that referral, the noble Baroness would not expect me to comment further on what the Attorney-General might recommend.
	The noble Baroness refers to "complicity". The Government are clear that this is not a matter of a wink and a nod or of turning the other way and somehow extracting information because torture is done by another hand. We are very clear about this: we do not participate in torture. We will get information through interview techniques, confident, we hope, that the individual being interviewed has not been subjected to torture. That is an absolute principle of our conduct. I do not want there to be a suggestion that, somehow, we are complicit in some sort of partial cover-up or attempt by the right hand to deny that it knows what the left hand is doing.
	On the question of specific representations to the US, I reassure the noble Baroness that across several exchanges at different levels between different officials on both sides, this has been discussed in intimate detail. We are not hiding behind some generic American reluctance to see intelligence published. This case has been discussed very specifically, most recently by the Foreign Secretary on Monday in Washington with the new Secretary of State. Similarly, the statement of the US National Security Council was very much in response to the specific findings of the High Court this week. It expressed gratitude to Her Majesty's Government,
	"for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long standing intelligence-sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens".
	I reassure the noble Baroness that we were not hiding behind generic official boilerplate. This is the very clear view of the US.
	As to the complete release of the material, including redacted paragraphs, let me be clear that the lawyers have received full access to the material that they need. The material was subjected to a legal review and all material that was felt to be necessary was released to the defendant's US lawyers. The only question is that of public release. On that point, because it is US material, it is for the US authorities and legal system to determine whether it should be released. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord noted, the very different position of the incoming Administration is obviously relevant. It is very much their privilege, and within their rights, to change policy and release this material, but we cannot breach these rights and do so for them. That is something for the new Administration to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, notes that only seven paragraphs have been redacted and therefore wonders whether they are central to the case or amount only to political embarrassment. The public sharing of these paragraphs would certainly be viewed by our intelligence agency counterparts in Washington as a politicisation of intelligence, which is, in this regard, much the same as embarrassment. It is information that they own, which we would be sharing in a way that they felt was against their interests. I come back to the point that, if it is to be released, it should be a US decision, based on US courts and US government practice.
	How quickly the Attorney-General will be able to proceed is a matter for her. As noble Lords know, Attorney-Generals are historically reluctant to comment until they have finished their review.
	Finally, on the noble Lord's point about Diego Garcia, we share his hope that there will be no more surprises on this. We sought and received clear assurances from the US Administration that there had been no further use of Diego Garcia beyond what had been debated in this House. Again, if that is not true, we will be the first to want to know.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement. It seems that the UK Government are effectively preventing Mr Binyam Mohamed from accessing justice. I wonder if the Government are proposing any alternative steps. For example, are the Government planning to compensate Mr Mohamed for his losses? Furthermore, in view of the now public knowledge that the UK intelligence authorities were unaware of the rendition of Mr Binyam Mohamed until well after the event, does the Minister agree that the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, otherwise known as the Chicago Convention, should be examined with care and amended where necessary to pre-empt any future extraordinary rendition?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I make it clear that while it is certainly within the rights of Mr Binyam Mohamed to seek legal redress for any disadvantage at which he feels that the UK has put him, we are not preventing him meeting his full rights. As I have said, the full dossier of what is relevant has been shared with his US lawyers, so he is not disadvantaged in any way. On the noble Baroness's point about the Chicago Convention, I confess to her that I shall have to get back to her.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me—I go straight to the main issue of the Statement, which is publishing American intelligence material without American permission—that there is an unbreakable rule, known by every intelligence officer, however junior or senior, that if service A receives material from service B, service A cannot pass it to anyone else without the express permission of the originating service, service B? In my day, it was called the third-party rule, and probably still is. It always came into play everywhere and anywhere it was relevant. Does the Minister agree that the importance of this rule should be obvious to everybody? It is the basis on which intelligence is able to be exchanged and passed to other services. It is not for anyone—not another service nor even learned judges—to make a judgment on whether the material deserves to be regarded as sensitive or protected. Only the originator of intelligence material knows its source details. Does the Minister agree that if British material was ever published or passed to anybody else without our express permission we would be very angry, feel very betrayed, and certainly review our relationship with the service that had let us down?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ramsay is another in this House who has enormous experience of these matters. She has described to us the essential Hippocratic oath of the intelligence-gathering profession: that we must protect our foreign sources and never breach their trust or betray them by releasing, on our own volition, information shared with us. It goes to the heart of the integrity of intelligence co-operation. That copyright of the originator of the intelligence is the central, cardinal principle of international intelligence co-operation. I suspect that many in this House would agree that we jeopardise a lot if we breach it. The noble Baroness pointed to the outrage that we would feel if a court of any one of our close allies was about to unleash or release British secrets to the public of that country in a way that embarrassed us and affected our future intelligence operations. We should put ourselves for a moment in those shoes to understand just how important this principle is.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, some two or three years ago, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House ruled that, where a defendant claims that his confession should not be admitted as evidence because it had been obtained by torture in another country, the burden of the proof of torture rests on the defendant. Do the Government accept that, where it appears that evidence which may establish torture exists but has not been available to the United Kingdom court, the prosecution should be required to prove that the confession was not obtained by torture? That would be highly material if a prosecution of either Mr Mohamed or anybody else in a similar position was contemplated in the United Kingdom.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that all material, including the material covering the circumstances in which evidence was taken from Mr Mohamed, has been shared with his lawyers. Those lawyers do not have a hand tied behind their back, nor is the information available to them in any way limited. The sole issue is whether the information should be released beyond the lawyers to the public at large.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Mr Mohamed is still at Guantanamo? I ask this because the Statement mentioned the United States federal courts, so he could be somewhere else. As to the Attorney-General, whose presence we all welcome, can the Minister confirm that her conclusions will be published as soon as possible? Does he agree that Guantanamo is only the tip of the iceberg of a far greater amount around the world of detention without trial? We in this House argue whether there should be detention of 14 or 28 days or some other figure, but many of the people concerned have been held for several years. That cannot be helpful to democracy or the defence of the rule of law.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the prisoner is still detained at Guantanamo. He has exercised his rights to appeal to the federal system, which is probably why the confusion has arisen. We are pressing strongly for his return to the UK. We were able to make a consular visit to him last year. The broader issues of detention, habeas corpus and the rule of law arise. It is a global problem, and it is why we all commend what President Obama has done to begin the process of putting the US back in the vanguard of those countries which fight for the right of habeas corpus and the rule of law around the world.

Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, do the Government deny awareness as well as complicity?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is passing words. We have made it clear that the information around this case became available to us only from 2007. In that sense, there was a period when we were speaking without full information being to hand. We have acknowledged that to this House in the past. Without wanting to go too deeply into the details, I again make it clear that the case of the intelligence services is that, if any interviews of the defendant took place, they did so under circumstances where our services were utterly unaware that torture might have taken place.

Baroness Manningham-Buller: My Lords, I declare the obvious interest that I was director-general of the Security Service at the time when some of the events of this case occurred. However, it would be wrong of me to speak of that in this House, not only because of the Attorney-General's work but also because I have no access to the papers and cannot remind myself of the details and chronology of this case. However, all those details were shared by me and, I believe, my successor with the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee.
	I shall make three points not directly related to this case as background. The first is to endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about the third-country rule. I sympathise with those who think that rules are there to be challenged and checked for continuing validity. However, it is pretty well impractical always to check whether something has been derived from torture unless you have reason to suspect it at the beginning. Literally thousands of pieces of intelligence are shared daily between the UK, our allies and people who might not so reasonably be described as our allies. That intelligence would dry up if we did not honour the third-country rule. Not all other counties honour it; in that case, we deny them our intelligence. The second—

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: You have to ask a question.

Baroness Manningham-Buller: My Lords, I am being reminded that I have to ask a question. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm my comment on the amount of material that is going around the place and the impracticality of checking each bit for torture. I apologise to the House for not getting these things quite in the right order.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, it must be a source of great comfort to this House that the noble Baroness was involved in some of the earlier decisions about information going to the appropriate UK institutions. She has already in her short time in this House demonstrated her commitment to the rule of law and to, above all else, not detaining prisoners for the wrong reasons without the right legal basis to do so. Our intelligence services have in recent years always been in the hands of individuals who very much understand the obligations and values under which they are expected to operate.
	Fortunately, this Minister does not have to see the several thousand pieces of intelligence that move each day, and always has a suspicion that some are of better quality than others. However, I equally agree with the noble Baroness that any breach of the third-country rule risks drying up that stream in a way that would seriously jeopardise British national interests.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's continued commitment to oppose torture in all its forms. I ask my noble friend two questions. First, when did we last approach the American Administration—not the security services but the Administration—about whether they would be prepared to release this information or allow us to do so? I ask that because, of course, there has been a complete change of heart on torture and Guantanamo since President Obama took office. Whereas approaching the security services in the United States may give us the same answer as we got under Bush, I wonder whether approaching the American Administration might not give us a more positive answer now. Secondly, is the issue about whether Mr Mohamed has been tortured—and, therefore there are fewer security implications as regards the fact, even while there is political embarrassment—or about the whole raft of evidence against him?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the most recent direct contact at the political level was this week between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State. There is no lack of understanding at the highest reaches of the new Administration of this case and the issues that it raises. Again, however, the decision must rest with the new Administration on whether it chooses that it is in the American public interest to make that information available. We cannot breach the third-country rule and make that decision for them. On the issues of concern about the withheld information, I really do not think that it is appropriate for me to comment. I hope that noble Lords will understand why.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? Nobody as I have heard it has suggested that we should breach the third-country rule; its importance has been emphasised in the most authoritative way. Would he confirm, however, that there would be no breach of the rule, or breach of convention or practice, if Her Majesty's Government in confidence expressed to the United States Government their view about publication of material which they, as the Minister confirmed, have themselves seen in confidence?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I absolutely confirm that there would be no reason why we would not do so. Indeed, it would be completely consistent with our position. Again, the decision lies in their hands. Just as we pressed for the release to us of Mr Binyam Mohamed, in the same way we think this case would be served by as much release of information as possible.

Violence against Women and Children
	 — 
	Debate

Moved By Baroness Gale
	To call attention to measures to tackle violence against women and children; and to move for Papers.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, once again we debate violence against women and children, a topic to which your Lordships' House often returns. I welcome the opportunity to do so today, if only to send a message to all the women and children who are suffering from violence in this way.
	The UN defines violence against women as,
	"any act of gender-based violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately".
	It includes rape and sexual violence, domestic violence, forced marriages, stalking, trafficking and sexual exploitation, forced prostitution, crimes in the name of honour, female genital mutilation and sexual harassment.
	The figures of violence against women make depressing reading. Three million women across the UK experience violence each year. There are many more women coping with the legacies of abuse experienced in the past as children or adults. Almost half the women in England and Wales experience domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking in their lives. Research for the Government estimates that in England and Wales in one year, domestic violence alone costs £23 billion; £17 billion is the human and emotional cost and £6 billion is the direct cost to the state.
	Violence that women experience is usually committed by men they know—partners, family members, friends or work colleagues. One imagines our home to be a haven of peace and safety, but for many women and children it can become a prison and a place of fear. Sexual harassment in public is widespread, and contributes to women's fear of crime, and whether or not they feel safe in public spaces at night. Women are twice as likely as men to be worried about violent crime.
	Violence affects females of all ages. Girls and young women are more likely to experience sexual violence; older women are more likely to be abused by carers than are older men. Women with mental health problems and learning difficulties are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence. Ethnic minority women face additional barriers to accessing support and experience particular forms of violence, such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and crimes in the name of honour.
	The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has an excellent record of taking measures to eliminate violence against women. At present, it is putting forward ideas and suggestions to establish a Council of Europe convention on combating violence against women. In a recommendation towards this end it says:
	"Despite the progress made and the international instruments already in existence, the Assembly considers that action to combat violence against women must be intensified. It is convinced that the drafting of a legal instrument which embodies the "three Ps" (protection of victims, punishment of perpetrators and prevention) and specifically addressing the question of gender-based violence is necessary in order to encourage the member states to attain the minimum standards in this respect and strengthen their legislation. The Assembly feels that the preparation of a framework convention ... would make it possible to propose guidelines and provisions defining objectives that the contracting parties would undertake to pursue through national legislation and appropriate governmental action".
	The assembly is now inviting the Committee of Ministers to draft a convention on the severest and most widespread forms of violence against women, associating the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the Council of Europe and the NGOs in the drafting process. I believe that it would be an advantage to have such a convention. Does my noble and learned friend agree with this idea? Will the Government, as represented by the Foreign Secretary at the Committee of Ministers, sign up to the convention at the appropriate time?
	Last week the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence Against Women campaign published the second Map the Gaps report. This is a detailed report on all aspects of violence against women and what is happening regarding the provision of services from the Government across the UK. What hit the headlines were the remarks of Trevor Phillips, chair of the commission, who said that the commission will target more than 100 local authorities with the threat of legal action as they have failed to provide specialised services for women who have experienced violence.
	The report says that one in four local authorities in Britain have no specialist support services at all. This must be a concern to a Government who are committed to assisting women who are the victims of violence. How can these local authorities be persuaded to provide support? Does it pose the question: will threats of legal action work? It must be difficult for women in these local authority areas who have no support whatever. I am not sure exactly what the Government can do, but I am sure that my noble and learned friend will do her utmost.
	I praise the Government for the initiatives they have taken to deal with this huge problem of violence against women. Many organisations have called for an integrated strategy to combat violence against women in all its forms, including the Women's National Commission, the End Violence Against Women campaign and Welsh Women's Aid.
	Welsh Women's Aid has called on the Welsh Assembly Government to develop and implement an integrated strategy on violence against women based on the gender equality and human rights. A recent YouGov poll showed overwhelming public support in Wales— 84 per cent—for such a policy. The Equality and Human Rights Commission in Wales supports the call for a violence against women strategy and it is taking steps to link up the work on prevention, the criminal justice system and those who provide protection and support for women such as the 24-hour Wales Domestic Abuse Helpline and sexual assault referral centres. As there have been so many calls for a violence against women strategy, I was pleased to learn that my honourable friend Maria Eagle MP has announced that the Home Secretary has confirmed to the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Government have accepted its recommendation to adopt a cross-government violence against women strategy and that a consultation on violence against women and women's safety will be launched later this year. Can my noble and learned friend give any information on when the consultation will be launched?
	I have concentrated my remarks in the main on violence against women. I am aware that other noble Lords—or noble Baronesses, I should say, as most of our speakers today are noble Baronesses, although I am pleased that one noble Lord is to speak—will be speaking about children. I will confine my remarks to a campaign that the NSPCC is running calling on the UK Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly to see domestic violence from a child's point of view. In its petition it says that it wants to see:
	"Adequate support services for children and families affected so that when they are brave enough to speak out, they know that they will be safe and supported... Training for professionals to identify children living with domestic violence so that whenever adults are working with domestic violence they think about the children affected... Education about domestic violence in schools and other youth settings so all children learn that the violence is not their fault, and how to stay safe".
	The Department of Health estimates that every year 750,00 children experience domestic violence but estimating numbers is difficult given that so many women do not report domestic violence, so it is possible that the true figure is higher; it is a big problem. Children need protection. It is well documented how violence in the home can affect children, and for young boys seeing their father hit their mother means that to a child this is the norm; it is acceptable, as most behaviour is learnt at home. Will my noble and learned friend give her response to the NSPCC's campaign; and what initiatives are the Government undertaking to support children who are victims of violence in the home and outside the home such as bullying in school?
	One successful government initiative has been the specialist domestic violence courts. They bring together police, prosecutors, court staff, the probation service and specialised support services so that more offenders are brought to justice. The courts were first established in 2005-06 with 25 courts receiving accreditation. There are now more than 100 and they are spread across England and Wales. I believe that there will be more announcements in the future. This is a great initiative and gives women victims much greater faith in the system by bringing the perpetrators to justice.
	Since 1997 the Government have taken violence against women seriously, and have brought in many measures and new laws to try and tackle this problem, which affects women and children throughout the world. As I read, learn, and speak to women in this country and abroad, sometimes I feel that the problem is so big that whatever measure is taken, the biggest problem of all is what measures can be taken to stop men from being violent towards women?
	Organisations such as the White Ribbon Campaign run by men whose aim is to stop men being violent towards women is a way forward. This is not just a matter for women; we need many more men involved. On the topic of prevention, one way would be to start at an early age with boys and girls, teaching them respect for women. That should involve education at school, in the community and in the home. It is a long-term aim. Can my noble and learned friend say what programme she is aware of that is thinking of prevention? Are there any government initiatives or programmes of that nature?
	Despite the diligent work that the Government have undertaken and the work that the NGOs are carrying out in this area, there is still so much more needed. Women cannot achieve equality if they are constantly living in fear of violence. We have made great progress in terms of awareness, in speaking openly about violence and encouraging women to come forward and report any incident, but of course there is so much to do before we can eliminate the scourge of violence that men perpetrate on women.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on raising yet again this vitally important issue—an issue which affects the whole of society and not just the immediate victims and perpetrators. In order to justify that claim, I would like to concentrate my remarks on the effects of domestic violence on the 750,000 children in our country who experience it every year. The Home Office definition of domestic violence does not take account of the effect on children, although we know that 30 to 60 per cent of men who are violent to their female partners also hit the children. The Welsh Assembly has a much more inclusive definition. Does the Minister have any plans to change the definition for England?
	The main difference between a woman and a child is pretty obvious: the former is an adult and fully developed, the latter is not fully developed. That is the crucial point that I would like to make. I am afraid that I will get a little technical in order to explain the consequences of this. It is a clear case of cause and effect.
	We now know a lot about the development of a child's brain, particularly in the first three years of life. The structure of the developing infant brain is a crucial factor in the creation, or not, of violent tendencies, because early patterns are established, not only psychologically but at the physiological level of brain formation. Indeed, we also know from a research paper by Cummings et al in 1989 that male aggressive behaviour is highly stable as early as the age of two.
	At birth, the infant brain is not fully developed. We now know that development is completed in the first three years of life. The human infant brain is uniquely plastic. That has enormous survival value for the human species, since it allows the human child to adapt to its environment. But there are dangers in that if the environment in which he finds himself causes his brain to develop in certain undesirable ways.
	The child has about 100 billion brain cells or neurones at birth; indeed, I believe that they start to die off as soon as we are born. But what has not yet developed fully is the amazing network of connections, synapses and pathways that connect those neurones together in a veritable cat's cradle. We need these pathways in order to think, feel and make choices. At birth there are about 50 trillion of these connections, but at age two months, new synapses start to form at a tremendous rate, so that by the age of three years this number has increased twenty-fold to 1,000 trillion. In 1997, a researcher called Shore concluded that since this is too large a number to be specified by genes alone, they must be formed by experience, and that is now accepted by medical science. That is why the experiences of children have such a major effect on their lives. Because a human baby is so vulnerable, his potential is defined by the quality of the support received in the very early formative years.
	Synapses are strengthened and reinforced by experience and our early-life experiences determine which of these pathways through the brain live on and which fall into disuse. The scientists call it pruning. Some of the pathways become hard-wired by repeated use. It is a bit like when you first go to the home of a new friend, you need a map. After one or two visits you hardly look at the map, and then you do not need it at all. If you go frequently, you get to the stage where you could probably find your way blindfolded. But if you do not visit for some years, you may need the map again.
	Such reinforcement makes the things that we learn when we are young very resistant to change. I find it very hard to leave food on my plate because my mother always told me to eat it all up because the poor children in China and Africa did not have any and I was very lucky. I am sure that your Lordships can think of similar examples. The way that child becomes attached to its mother or main carer is explained by this and by other, even earlier factors, since the child sees the face and hears the voice of that person most frequently and associates those things with being nurtured and his various needs being met.
	The downside of all this adaptiveness is that the human brain is very vulnerable to trauma. That is why the slogan "Not in front of the children" is a good one. The way it works is as follows. The development of brain cells is affected by the chemicals that surround them. If the early experience is predominantly fear and stress, the stress hormone cortisol washes over the brain like acid and affects its development by reducing the number of connections made. By using CAT scans, scientists have found that in abused or neglected children the brain is smaller than normal and the parts governing emotion are 20 per cent to 30 per cent smaller and tend to have fewer connections. The part responsible for memory is also smaller. Bremner et al, in papers written in 1995 and 2003, stated that that is because of the toxic effects of cortisol. It is obvious, therefore, that a child whose brain develops like this will have less emotional maturity and his learning will be affected.
	On top of that, in 2002, Eisler and Levine found that the normal hair-trigger effect is enhanced when the brain develops in a high-cortisol environment. You might expect this to happen in a child who is under frequent threat of violence, because it is a protective mechanism; but it means that, for such a child, the slightest stress unleashes a surge of stress hormones causing anxiety, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour. He cannot help himself. Trauma also scrambles the signals that tell the growing neurones where to go, so children who are subjected to unpredictable stress, such as alcoholic parents who are kind one day and lash out the next, have a lower IQ and find it harder to learn. There is a whole lot more to say about infant brain development, but I think that that is enough.
	A large research project in the USA called ACE has identified the specific effects on the child's health and behaviour and on society of early childhood trauma, such as violence and sexual abuse or witnessing violence. In the case of the child, it causes: violent personality and anti-social behaviour; poor mental health; lower intelligence and impaired ability to learn; low emotional intelligence; poor physical health, such as an increased chance of heart attack and liver malfunction; career failure; and reduced happiness. The effects on society are: violence and anti-social behaviour; school underperformance, so that greater resources are needed to deal with it; economic underperformance and a lower tax take; poor personal relationships, leading to more broken families; high health expenditure on physical and mental health; and reduced societal happiness, leading to all kinds of effects, including more crime.
	So society suffers as well as the child by having to spend more on social welfare, health, education, and all elements of criminal justice. Therefore it is not just to ensure that the child receives his human right not to be subjected to violence that we need to identify and deal with domestic violence as quickly and effectively as we can, it is for the whole of society.
	The WAVE Trust, to which I am grateful for much of this information, has analysed the factors that contribute to a violent event. There has to be both a propensity and a trigger. Short-term measures can reduce the triggers, such as drug and alcohol treatment, addressing unemployment, economic inequality and family breakdown. However, we also need long-term measures to address the propensity to violence. That is where prevention comes in, and that is why the whole of this situation is a vicious circle unless it is addressed. A child subjected to violence cannot help but grow up with a propensity to violence, and so it goes on. We therefore need to initiate measures to put a "full stop" to all that. I use that phrase deliberately, because we have all had an excellent briefing from the NSPCC, with a number of proposals which chime well with the recommendations of the WAVE Trust.
	Both propose that we need to identify where domestic violence is taking place by training professionals to recognise the signs, and by that I mean teachers and nursery workers as well as social workers and health professionals. We also need education for children about what to do and who to tell. When they are brave enough to tell someone, we must be sure that there is someone there to help them. We also need to reassure them that it does not necessarily mean family break-up if the perpetrator can be helped to change his behaviour. Then, we need adequate support services for the families affected.
	Those services also need to be culturally sensitive and appropriate. The NSPCC produced a very interesting report about domestic violence among South Asian communities. It stresses that there is no evidence that there is more of this abuse in that community than in any other, but it points out that the reaction of both women and children to such abuse is different. Because of the cultural context, because they often do not trust the authorities and because of the shame of family break-up, the matter is often swept under the carpet and hidden. Both women and children are reluctant to tell anyone and that matter must be addressed.
	We need a much more rigorous approach based on a risk-assessment model with prevention at its heart. This is a public health problem with widespread consequences and it needs effective monitoring and intervention by health, education and social welfare professionals, not just the criminal justice system. Only if that is done will we break the cycle of violence. In doing so, we will improve the happiness level of the whole of society.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for initiating this debate. Throughout my professional career I have seen at first hand the results, physical and emotional, of abuse and violence against women and children, and I welcome the opportunity to draw attention to this important subject.
	Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I shall focus on domestic violence and, in particular, its effect on children. Perhaps that will be the theme of the debate. Within the chronic pain-management programme that my team runs at Velindre NHS Trust, very many patients have been subject to abuse of one type or another, often in childhood, and often they have told no one for years and years. Sometimes when they come to our service, it is the first time that they have disclosed what has gone on. The damage from that abuse lingers on throughout the rest of their lives, is held within their chronic pain, and reinforces it. Sometimes the perpetrators have been women. There is violence from women to women, from women to men, and from women to children. We must not be under the misapprehension that there are no women perpetrators and blame it all on men. I had to appear as a witness at the Old Bailey after admitting a child to hospital who had been dipped in scalding water by his mother's boyfriend. I have seen children, toddlers and babies who have been abused and I have sometimes been the first person to diagnose that abuse.
	The official Home Office definition of domestic violence that applies in England is,
	"any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality".
	While this definition captures the essence of domestic violence between the primary parties involved, it fails to capture the impact of the abuse on children. Widening the definition to cover violence witnessed by children will ensure that greater attention is given to children and young people when policy is developed. I know that the Government are committed to reviewing this definition over the next year and I call on them to include children in the new definition.
	The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in October last year that government give children equal protection under the law on assault. This was the third time that the committee had made such a recommendation. It is time for the Government to send a clear message that any violence is against the law, whether committed against an adult or a child. Why do this Government remain unwilling to protect the smallest, most fragile and most vulnerable in our society, who cannot even speak up for themselves and cannot call for help? Yet I fail to understand why the protection of hulking great teenagers and adults is greater than that which we afford to small and pre-school children.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke about what has been happening in Wales, where the Welsh Assembly Government take this issue seriously. The Welsh definition of domestic violence is far more comprehensive, and makes specific mention of violence against children as well as the effect that violence has on them. Despite its length, the definition warrants being heard. It states:
	"Domestic Abuse is best described as the use of physical and/or emotional abuse or violence, including undermining of self confidence, sexual violence or the threat of violence, by a person who is or has been in a close relationship. Domestic abuse can go beyond actual physical violence. It can also involve emotional abuse, the destruction of a spouse's or partner's property, their isolation from friends, family or other potential sources of support, threats to others including children, control over access to money, personal items, food, transportation and the telephone, and stalking. It can also include violence perpetrated by a son, daughter or any other person who has a close or blood relationship with the victim/survivor. It can also include violence inflicted on, or witnessed by, children. The wide adverse effects of living with domestic abuse for children must be recognised as a child protection issue. The effects can be linked to poor educational achievement, social exclusion and to juvenile crime, substance abuse, mental health problems and homelessness from running away. Domestic abuse is not a "one-off" occurrence; it is frequent and persistent".
	That is the English translation of the Welsh definition. I suggest that this definition may prove to be a helpful starting point when the Government come to review the definition in England.
	It is vital that as a nation we protect our children from exposure to violence, not only for their physical protection but because over time violence becomes a learnt behaviour and a child will begin to accept it as normal. Children who grow up with this mentality become adults with the same mental processes, and the cycle continues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, explained eloquently, clearly and, I have to say as a medical person, accurately, the reasons for this, I will not reiterate them; but the abused child's brain is permanently damaged by experience. Even tension in utero from abuse of a pregnant woman affects the baby before birth. It has been shown that matching mothers at risk of postnatal depression with telephone volunteers who have had only four hours' training, but who will personally support those women, significantly lowers the incidence of postnatal depression in those women. Some of those innovative support programmes are dramatically effective for isolated women at risk of abuse and of becoming abusers through depression.
	The Department of Health estimates that every year three-quarters of a million children experience domestic violence. That is shocking, but, given that many women often do not report domestic violence, or take many years to do so, the actual figure is likely to be much higher. One study found that women had experienced an average of 35 incidents of domestic abuse before contacting the police. Anyone who has worked in a casualty department will know only too often how women will present with injuries and say that they walked into a cupboard or tripped over something, yet you are absolutely certain that they have been abused, but they refuse to admit to it, even when confronted with the fact that their injuries look like they have been hit or when asked, "Who has hit you?".
	In 2002 the NSPCC prevalence study showed that 26 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds have lived with violence between their parents or carers. That represents a quarter of the age group. Further research estimates that in between 30 per cent and 60 per cent of domestic violence cases the abusive partner is also abusing children in the family.
	Violence of any nature is awful, but domestic violence is particularly heinous because it is hidden, yet its consequences are physical, psychological and enduring. When women and children suffer domestic violence, their physical wounds heal faster than the emotional wounds. It is essential that there is early help for victims and that society adopts a protective, proactive approach for those who are vulnerable.
	There are three key areas on which I would appreciate a response from the Minister. The first is the need for adequate support services for children and families affected by domestic violence, so that if they are brave enough to speak out, they know they will be safe and supported. Current government provision is not enough. You only have to see what happens in accident and emergency departments to be aware of that.
	The NSPCC has informed me that there is a nationwide lack of provision for children and that many local authorities provide substandard services. However, there are areas of best practice where specialist services are provided, such as crèche facilities, carers, individual therapeutic work, advice and guidance sessions and group work programmes. Will the Government look to these areas as examples of good practice to follow them and to roll them out in other areas?
	My second point concerns the need for training for professionals to identify children living with domestic violence. This would mean that, whenever adult professionals are working with domestic violence victims, they would give automatic consideration to the way that children were affected, too. Can the Minister tell us what training is provided to those who work with domestic violence victims to ensure that they consider the effect that it has on children?
	The third point concerns education about domestic violence. Many children who experience domestic violence feel guilty and blame themselves for what has happened. Children need to learn that the violence is not their fault and also how to stay safe if they find themselves in a potentially violent situation. It is horrific to see how many children still do not disclose sexual abuse for years but go in on themselves, become quiet and feel guilty. They are aware that, if they expose the abuse, they will potentially break up the family.
	Support can be achieved by teaching about the subject in schools and youth settings. Are there plans to introduce such teaching into schools' curricula? Many schools now have good support systems whereby a child can report violence of any type and immediately receive support. Can the Minister tell us how the quality of such support is monitored across the UK to ensure that every child in every school is confident that school is a supportive environment?
	I understand that the Home Office is currently developing a strategy on violence against women. Can the Minister confirm to what extent children will be considered within this review as either primary victims of violence or secondary victims due to their proximity to, and experience and witnessing of, violence among those who purport to love them?

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gale for introducing this debate. She has been a great champion of this issue and I am grateful to her for the opportunity to review what has been taking place.
	I also congratulate the Government. The Attorney-General, who is here today, has been at the forefront of bringing about great change in this area. She has been supported, I know, by the Solicitor-General and other women Ministers, and we have seen a real step change in this issue over the past decade. Other parties have also been working hard at developing strategy and stepping up on this issue. I know that because I have recently seen some of the work in the policy document being produced by the Conservative Party. It, too, is now clear that this is an important issue which is central to our society because the costs to us all are so great.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I come at this matter from a lifetime's experience as a professional. I speak as a lawyer and she spoke as a doctor. When practising in the courts in my early years, I saw domestic violence at the front line. At that time, the taboos, which have already been mentioned, were considerable. Women felt ashamed and therefore often did not seek the help of the authorities. Their families felt shame, so women were surrounded by silence on this issue.
	We also contended with many myths, one of which was that women were battered only if they brought it on their own heads. It was an example of blaming the victim, as we have so often seen. Other myths were that somehow domestic violence existed only within certain classes within society or within certain ethnic minorities—for example, the Irish or Afro-Caribbeans. The assumptions that existed within our courts were extraordinary. Happily, we have seen a recognition that this issue cuts across all the social divides and is known within all families. Any of us who travel and speak on human rights issues know that, whichever country we visit in the world, there will be women activists, lawyers and judges who raise the fact that domestic violence is a serious problem within their communities.
	A lot has been done and I do not want in any way to sound displeased with the progress that has been made. No Government have done more than this one. We now have specialist courts and specialist prosecutors, and far more streamlined processes. We have also seen a great change in attitude among the judiciary and magistracy: because of good training, there is now a much wider understanding of the dynamics of violence. I have seen a remarkable difference in the approach of the courts towards domestic violence.
	However, I am afraid that I am going to raise an issue of concern. I do not want it to appear as ingratitude towards the Government but, in this worsening economic climate, I am fearful that women may feel under even greater pressure to stay with violent and abusive partners, and I am very concerned that many children within families will suffer in consequence.
	Today we have spoken about the consequences of domestic violence for children, but we need really good, supportive agencies and we need to ensure that the refuges that exist are maintained. I regret that the refuge movement is already seeing a diminution of its funding and of the support that it gets from donations, local authorities and others as a means of staying in existence.
	I am the patron of a national domestic violence charity, Refuge, and I have seen evidence of this erosion first hand. Every day, women and children are turned away from already overflowing refuges. The ones that exist operate on a hand-to-mouth basis. Some services, such as Refuge's independent advocacy scheme in Kent and its psychological services, are facing closure. In the current recession, donor income is drying up and Refuge has had to make staff redundant in order to balance its budget and keep essential services going. That should be a source of real concern to us all. It was very interesting to hear how people, particularly babies, are damaged by being in a violent environment. We need good specialist services provided by well trained specialist individuals, but, unfortunately, I think that we are going to see a reduction in them unless we are alert to the problem.
	Service provision for victims of domestic violence is patchy. As it stands, local authorities can choose whether to provide domestic violence services, and one third of them around the country provide none. I ask the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General what can be done about local authorities that fail to make such provision. We need to have a stick or a carrot. There has to be some way of dealing with what is essentially a postcode lottery for those who need support.
	The chief executive of Refuge, Sandra Horley, is a remarkable woman. She was one of the people who managed to make this a mainstream issue. She has had input in policy over the 30 years that she has worked in the field. She tells me that early intervention is essential and that there must be specialist support services. The vital work to prevent domestic violence is underfunded. She says that, as one of the country's largest providers of domestic violence services, she is now seeing real problems with lack of funding. Refuge is now at risk of losing the first refuge, the Chiswick refuge, to other providers that have no specialist knowledge of domestic violence. That is a real regret, because this work cannot be done without expertise.
	It may shock the House to know that Refuge currently receives no statutory funding to support children who have been exposed to domestic violence. Sandra Horley has listened to pre-schoolers talking about how daddy and mummy locked them in the bathroom while they were involved in some extremely violent event, and to teenagers describing how their whole lives have been blighted by a violent father. Finding funds to provide psychologists who can address these children's suffering is like finding gold dust. Only recently, the Department of Health turned down Refuge's application for a head of psychological services.
	The Government and Comic Relief provide some funding for Refuge's National Domestic Violence Helpline. I have sat in its office and watched it work. It is a revelation. Helpline staff provide vital, sometimes lifesaving, support, but they struggle to answer every call. The helpline is, effectively, a 999 service run on a shoestring budget. A combination of Refuge and Women's Aid provide the service in partnership. More of Refuge's staff's time is now being spent scrambling to find funds in an already impoverished sector, which is time that should be spent supporting women and children. Since Refuge opened the doors of its first refuge in 1971, three Home Affairs Select Committees have urged the Government to increase funding as a matter of urgency. If Refuge collapsed tomorrow, thousands of women and children would be left with nowhere to turn. We have just had a debate on the impact on families of the recession. It will be vital that there is proper funding of support services for women and children. We should not be seeing a diminution of such services but an increase. I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will come to us with good news on that front.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gale for once again giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. One appreciates that there is violence against men, sometimes perpetrated by women, but in today's debate we are discussing violence against women. I declare an interest as chair of the Women's National Commission. Violence against women is an important part of our work, as it is consistently identified by our more than 500 partners as a priority to be addressed by governments locally and nationally. In her introduction, my noble friend indicated the complex interrelationships between the different elements that constitute violence against women, so I shall not repeat them. She also referred to a possible EU convention on violence against women, and I have a question for the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General. Can we be assured that there will be only one convention concerning all aspects of violence against women, not, as I have heard, one for domestic violence and one for other aspects of violence against women?
	Violence against women is probably the most pervasive rights violation. It is exploitation and abuse of one person by another. As my noble friend said, violence against women is a serious problem in the UK. There are 3 million women in the UK who experience violence, and many more living with the legacy of abuse experienced in the past. To put that in the context of other reasons that women unfortunately die, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner. Women are more likely to be killed by their partner than to be killed in a road accident or to die of cancer. We often forget the other people affected by violence against women. It has a devastating impact on those who experience it, their friends and families and wider society. It brings with it enormous personal, social and financial costs. We need to take the financial costs seriously and think about how we can reduce them by providing early and adequate services.
	Violence against women is both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality. Perpetrators are usually known men: partners, ex-partners, family members, friends or colleagues. They use power deliberately and systematically over time by psychological threat or physical force to frighten their victims and control their behaviour. Male control over women has a history. Women historically were legally the property of men—men owned women. The right of husbands to beat their wives was enshrined in law. Sexual access to women was a right of marriage. That was the case until as recently as the 1990s. Many of us campaigned vigorously to get that changed.
	Men still blame women for violence that they experience. That history unfortunately persists today. Research by Zero Tolerance shows that one in three teenage boys and one in five girls still thinks that,
	"some women deserve to be hit",
	depending on their behaviour. One in two boys and one in three girls thought that it was acceptable for a man to force a woman to have sex in certain circumstances. Those facts show the importance of teaching in schools about relationships and respect for each other, which is why the Government's decision to make PSHE statutory is so important.
	It is not surprising that young people have those views. Another piece of research by Amnesty showed that about one in three people still blames women for being raped and attributes sexual violence to some aspect of women's dress or behaviour. More than one in three thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she behaved in a "flirtatious" manner. Similarly, nearly one-third thought that a woman was fully or partially responsible for being raped if she was drunk. More than one-quarter of those surveyed said that they thought that a woman was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing "sexy or revealing" clothing, or had had many sexual partners.
	We must challenge the culture of excuses both with the public and in the courts. No longer should provocation be an acceptable defence. We must challenge the idea that women "provoke" violence. Nagging does not give a man the right to abuse women; infidelity does not give a man the right to beat women. Women never invite rape, whatever relationship they are in, whatever decisions they have made about drink or dress and whatever level of intimacy they have already engaged in with their attacker.
	Those women-blaming attitudes contribute to the appallingly low conviction rates for rape and domestic violence and to the relatively limited access for survivors. Local and national awareness-raising helps, such as the publicity launched by Rape Crisis in Scotland, which highlights that it is a myth that a woman raped while wearing revealing clothing is to blame for leading a man on, it is a myth that a woman raped after drinking is to blame for not considering her security, it is a myth that a woman raped after consenting to any level of sexual activity is to blame for having given "mixed signals", and it is a myth that a woman raped by a man with whom she is in a relationship has automatically given consent to sex.
	I raise those points because I want to ask my noble and learned friend whether there are any plans to have similar campaigns in the rest of the UK. Challenging those myths and protecting women and children is the commitment and work of voluntary sector organisations working locally and nationally to increase women's safety and to hold abusers to account for their behaviour. Women's services have also developed a service model that acknowledges the links between violence against women and power and control. Those organisations include Rape Crisis centres, refuges, domestic violence outreach projects, services for ethnic-minority women, and support for trafficked women and women in prostitution, but it is those women's services that currently face a national funding crisis. There are 30,000 women's services in England and Wales but, despite constituting 7 per cent of registered charities, only 1.2 per cent of government funding goes to women's NGOs.
	Independent women's services form a distinct and unique part of the wider voluntary and community sector, but the move to gender-neutral policies, the competitive tendering process and the failure to mainstream intelligently are contributing to their demise. The cross-government sexual violence and abuse action plan acknowledges that many of those organisations will find it difficult to access long-term core funding. Although extra funding will tackle the women's sector funding crisis, a greater focus is needed to address the impact of declining grants programmes, lack of understanding among commissioners about the women's sector and gender equality, and the serious and adverse impact of the competitive tendering process.
	At the same time as the cuts in the voluntary sector, the recent Maps of Gaps identifies that one in four local authorities has no specialist support services. In those cases, where are women meant to go? Women who suffer violence deserve good-quality local support services which understand a woman's complex and multiple needs and abuse. Where are those women going to find a women-only space, which is often essential? I will give what I hope, but do not believe, is an isolated example. I refer to the case of a woman who went to a Victim Support unit and was met by a man. She said that she had been raped. He sat her down and said, "Have a cup of tea, love, sit for half an hour and then go home. You'll be all right". He did not understand the situation and had not been trained, but for a woman to go into a building and be faced by a man when she has just been raped is not acceptable. We must have women-only spaces.
	The Women's National Commission welcomes the opportunity that it has been given to work with the Home Office on consultations to develop a national violence against women strategy, as we also welcome the increase in the number of SARCs and specialised domestic courts. We also appreciate the fact that the Government last year provided emergency resources to prevent future closures of rape crisis centres and other sexual health units. However, while at local level there are instances of good practice, these are isolated examples.
	Positive and progressive action is required to combat violence against women, not only to benefit the women themselves, but also to improve and redeem the lives of all those who suffer as a consequence of that violence.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for securing this debate. She has long promoted equality for women, and we are grateful to her. With her permission and that of the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General, I will concentrate on the situation in developing countries.
	Women and children around the world suffer violence in multiple forms, from rape and assault to forced marriage, honour crimes, female genital mutilation, trafficking and use as child soldiers. The effect on them and their societies is profound. ActionAid and others claim that at least one in three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. As women are so often culturally the second sex, the incidence of general abuse is likely to be even higher.
	Violence is a key barrier to women realising their rights and achieving social justice. It is because there is no gender equality that violence is so prevalent. Reflecting this are the hidden millions—the more than 60 million women and girls who are not here today because of sex-selective abortions and female infanticide.
	Where people are living on the edge, and where there is most conflict, women and children usually lose out the most. As Amnesty International and others point out, sexual violence remains widespread in various conflicts. Few women and children have access to adequate care or justice. Perpetrators of violence against women are rarely held accountable. Often the victims are stigmatised and further marginalised. I note the horrendous case flagged up yesterday in Iraq, where apparently a woman was arranging the rapes of other women so that they would then be ostracised, their lives effectively over, and she could recruit them as suicide bombers. What a reflection on how that society views rape.
	In the 1990s, rape was finally recognised as a war crime. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia announced in 1996 that it was indicting a number of individuals for sexual offences against women. That was a breakthrough. If anyone doubts rape as a means of control, they should look at how it is used to terrify, dominate and destroy in areas of conflict such as the Sudan or the DRC. Read Tears of the Desert, Halima Bashir's searing account of her life in Sudan.
	According to UNICEF, up to half a million women were raped in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In May last year, the former UN special envoy for AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, warned that to end conflict without stopping sexual violence against women made peace a "mere illusion".
	The All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region and Genocide Prevention recently produced a report entitled Justice, Impunity and Sexual Violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who led this investigation, hopes to be here in time to hear the response of the noble and learned Baroness. Focusing on tackling impunity for these crimes, the report's recommendations include wide-ranging reform and improved funding of the justice and security sector, particularly in fees, access to justice, and the training and recruitment of the judiciary. Could the noble and learned Baroness comment on the findings of this report?
	We are familiar with the terrible impact of HIV/AIDS. We are becoming familiar, too, with the fact that this is an epidemic which is now affecting women far more than men. In sub-Saharan Africa, women now account for 61 per cent of all adults living with HIV, and among the under-25s that figure rises to 75 per cent. Widespread violence against women and girls increases their risk of HIV infection, and the threat of violence deters women from refusing sex or insisting on condoms, even when they suspect their partner is HIV positive. Those who have suffered from female genital mutilation, too, are particularly vulnerable to contracting HIV/AIDS. FGM is an issue on which the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, has campaigned tirelessly, and she may well speak on it when I sit down. According to UNICEF:
	"An estimated 70 million girls and women living today have been subjected to FGM in Africa and Yemen".
	Halima Bashir, to whom I referred earlier, was one such victim. Read her account of not only the physical but the mental pain inflicted on her by those whom she loved and trusted. Time and again, what comes through is the secondary position of women.
	This is evident in so-called honour killings. The UNFPA estimated in 2000 that 5,000 women are murdered by family members each year in "honour killings". In 2006, the UN Secretary-General launched a study into all forms of violence against women, and a violence against women database is to be released in March 2009. 1 think that it will make pretty terrible reading, but I am glad that it is being produced. According to UNIFEM:
	"In a study of female deaths in Alexandria, Egypt, 47 percent of the women were killed by a relative after the woman had been raped. In Jordan and Lebanon, 70 to 75 percent of the perpetrators of these so-called 'honour killings' are the women's brothers".
	What are the Government doing internationally to strengthen legal reforms to tackle such violence against women?
	I welcome the steps taken to support my noble friend Lord Lester in the legislation he initiated against forced marriages. I realise that the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General was not initially convinced that this was the road to go down. I wonder if she has now changed her view, and what she makes of the workings of this Act.
	The position of children, especially girl children, often mirrors that of women. UNICEF estimates that 300 million children worldwide are subjected to violence, exploitation and abuse. The UN monitoring and reporting mechanism was established in 2005 to focus on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, sexual violence and other abuse. The vulnerability of children in areas of conflict, in extreme poverty or when orphaned by HIV/AIDS is very apparent when you see the increase in the numbers of child soldiers. Often they are taken from their families, but sometimes they are recruited having lost their families. An estimated 300,000 child soldiers, many of whom are girls, are often there to provide sexual services. The Lord's Resistance Army has been notorious for abducting thousands of children in northern Uganda; in the DRC, various warring factions continue to use children.
	The Paris principles of 2007, seeking to end the unlawful use of child soldiers, were signed by 58 states, including countries in conflict areas, but what impact does the Minister feel that it is having or might have? We know the problems faced by women and children internationally. Solutions and agreements are presented, but how far is this making difference? To take DfID and the case of HIV/AIDS, the new DfID strategy recognises that that tackling gender inequality is critical, but as the Select Committee on International Development argues,
	"welcome as these commitments are, few have practical strategies attached to them and details as to how they will be implemented are lacking".
	That is very concerning as it is clear that there has been some excellent work in DfID on women's empowerment. Going back a couple of years or so, an OECD review of DfID's work on gender equality stated that DfID's commitment was strong but that this had not translated effectively into action. Amnesty International echoed that concern. How has DfID tried to address this? I make my usual inquiry: are the cuts in staff in DfID affecting work on gender equality?
	UNIFEM is the only UN gender body present in developing countries, but it is a fund, not an independent agency. Its total income was under $65 million in 2006. The Secretary-General's high-level panel recently recommended that the capacity on women's rights should be strengthened. There should be a dynamic new entity focused on gender equality and women's empowerment, which should be "ambitiously funded". What progress is being made on this?
	We of course see some movement forward and it is a joy to meet so many women parliamentarians from all over the world and to see what they are doing, or to see women involved in their own enterprises funded through microfinance. The Government have worked hard to promote gender equality. They have very much pushed onwards—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—through the significant number of women parliamentarians and Ministers. But we have a long way to go and, for so many women and children, it is often too little and too late. In this period of enormous economic instability—again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, pointed out—we need to remember how much needs to be done to protect women and children everywhere from violence and to ensure that where there is pressure on societies, it is not, yet again, the women and children who suffer the most.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, violence against women and children is committed from various motives—hatred, jealousy, revenge, rage or loss of control through drink or drugs—or from an irrational and mindless assault on the nearest potential victim simply, as my noble friend Lady Gale said in her excellent introduction to the debate, because she is a woman. However, there is one kind that is unique in that, dreadful though it is in its effects, it is committed out of love.
	I speak of course, as I so often have over the years in your Lordships' House, of female genital mutilation. Parents who cause this kind of physical injury to their growing daughters, or even to their baby girls, do so to protect their cultural identity and in what they overwhelmingly believe to be the child's best interests. It is for love of their children that they commit these cruel and damaging acts and it is this that helps to make combating female genital mutilation such a formidable task.
	FGM happens all across sub-Saharan Africa—in Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Egypt Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Sudan. People believe that, uncircumcised, their daughters will fail to be accepted socially and fail to find husbands. Therefore, FGM can be called a form of social control of a woman's sexual and reproductive rights. The World Health Organisation estimates that between 130 million and 140 million girls and women have experienced female genital mutilation and up to 2 million girls a year undergo some form of the procedure, the most stringent form of which is the excision of the external genitalia, followed by a complete stitching up of the tissues over the wound. However, there is another, almost more repugnant, type, which involves cauterisation by burning or the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it.
	These practices are age old and perpetrated in the vast majority of cases because parents desire the best for their children. It seems strange to us now—it is strange—that FGM was carried on in Africa and in parts of Asia for centuries, perhaps for millennia, with no one in Europe or the American continent having any idea of its existence, still less its prevalence. Even in the 19th and early 20th centuries, if explorers or anthropologists had brought home travellers' tales of this practice and the suffering that it caused to women, prudish horror would have prevented its being talked about. Though missionaries were aware of it in the beginning of the 20th century and took steps—largely ineffectual—to stop it, it was not until the 1970s that, with immigration beginning, health professionals in the United Kingdom first saw its results, usually in pregnant patients. Then gradually began a movement to monitor its happening here and the start of measures to put a stop to it, leading to the Female Circumcision Act of 1985.
	Now, in 2009, it is still happening here. The 2001 FORWARD study estimated that nearly 66,000 women with FGM were living in England and Wales, and the number has increased since then. FGM is against the law; performing it is against the law—a law reinforced and enlarged by the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003. However, just as there were no prosecutions under the previous act, so there have been none under this one.
	Much has happened to bring hope since then. When I first took an interest in FGM nine years ago and began working with groups and health professionals to end it, ignorance of FGM's existence was profound. People preferred not to know. Many believed it wrong to interfere with tradition and cultural customs. What I will call the "yuck" factor was very evident, with those who heard about the practice recoiling from it and making a face. "I would rather not know", was a typical reaction. Many health professionals were ignorant of the procedure or even denied its existence in this country. No one seemed to know of the custom of immigrants taking their small daughters—infants or babies even—back to their country of origin for this purpose. All that has changed or is changing.
	As I have said, FGM is carried out from what may be called good motives: the welfare, as it seems to those of a very different culture from our own, of young women growing up in a society where women do not enjoy anything approaching equality and where the finding of a good husband and father of future children is paramount. In this country, if not yet to any extent in Africa, this is changing. Girls born to women of African origin have the chance here of education and a great measure of independence. If some of them suffer FGM, they will see to it that their children will not. Their children will find partners outside the ethnic group, people who find the practice of FGM repugnant. But all this is in the future. In the here and now it is said that as many as 20,000 girls are at risk of FGM in England and Wales.
	It has been a matter of great regret that no prosecutions have been brought under the 2003 Act. The Metropolitan Police, with their Project Azure, do their best to find and bring perpetrators to justice in the face of what amounts to almost a conspiracy of silence in the community. However, interestingly, they say that even if the Act has not resulted in prosecutions, its very existence provides a warning to potential circumcisers. People, usually women, whose intention is to carry out mutilation, are being prevented from doing so when it is explained to them that FGM is against the law and that the maximum penalty is 14 years' imprisonment. The FGM National Clinical Group, of which I am a patron, has experience of older women going back into their communities and deterring neighbours from taking their daughters back to Somalia for circumcision to be carried out.
	Much more can be done to hasten the process of ending FGM in this country by education and explanation. Almost incredible as it seems, midwives at a London hospital have been told by young pregnant women whom they are examining that they believe their mutilated condition to be normal. When told that, after their babies are born, their FGM can be reversed and their condition restored to something approximating to normal, the reply has been that they are normal and it is women who have never been cut who are malformed. Sadly, they were so young—some of them babies under a year old—when the mutilation was done that they have no memory of a state prior to their being mutilated.
	Reversals are increasingly being done and even if, with the current state of medical science, these procedures will never restore a woman's genitalia to their full natural function, they are still an enormous advance on what came before. Women must be urged to have reversals carried out. This restoration function will not only enormously improve their sexual and reproductive health but will also show what an enhanced level of married happiness and life itself they can confer on their daughters by resisting attempts to mutilate them.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Gale has secured this debate, which, in her usual fashion, she introduced with such passion, to be followed by such diverse contributions.
	As has been said, there have been positive initiatives to support women who are victims of violence. I have seen in the press recently that steps have been taken to make local authorities provide services. It was a shock to me to learn that one in four local authorities offers no specialised services for women who are victims. Important though such services are, however, today I shall discuss what might cause violence against women and children—indeed, against people in general—and what might be done to prevent or diminish its incidence.
	A great deal of research and literature from psychologists and psychiatrists examines violent behaviour. Many have discussed the differences between aggression and violence and the spectrum between the two. For me, violence is an exaggerated form of aggression that will involve cruelty, torture and extreme power differences and may be rooted in sexual insecurity. Other noble Lords have referred to this kind of violence already. The psychiatrist Felicity de Zulueta says that violence is an extreme expression of rage due to injuries to the perpetrator at an early date. She says that it is rooted in fear, without resolution. It is about dehumanising the person to whom violence is committed and may arise from psychological trauma, loss or deprivation. She emphasises, as do many others, the crucial importance of interpersonal and early relationships and the need to co-operate rather than destroy. Those are the aspects that I shall focus on. This all points to the need for children to be brought up without violence in the home and to have positive parenting. There is strong evidence that children who experience or observe violence in the home will be profoundly affected, many seriously, and that they may grow up to be violent themselves. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, have focused on this.
	This week we have had the result of the Good Childhood Inquiry, which I shall return to later. We have had a UNICEF report that concluded that children in England were less happy than others around the world. We have had the joint report of the Children's Commissioners for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which showed many good things about being a child in England but also many disturbing worries for children about, for example, being bullied, having little space to play and being overtested in school; I believe that our children are the most tested in the world.
	It is and always has been obvious that the quality of parenting and of relationships with significant adults has a profound influence on the child's ability to be happy, grounded and confident, to resist pressure and to perform well. Such children who are well nurtured tend to develop good relationships and co-operate rather than become aggressive or violent.
	The director and the head of capabilities at Demos had an article in last week's New Statesman saying:
	"It's the quality of parenting in Britain, rather than the education system, that's really failing our children—and the government is doing nothing to address it".
	They go on to talk about this in the context of inequalities. I cannot agree that the Government are doing nothing, but perhaps there could be more emphasis on prevention and intervention as well as on treatment. The Government have done much to support parents. We have only to look at the impact of Sure Start, the attack on child poverty, child tax credits and other welfare reform that supports families. We have the recent and expanding family intervention projects, which are showing very positive results. In our schools, we have programmes on the social and emotional aspects of learning. Personal and social health education will become a statutory subject. We have anti-bullying strategies and so on.
	We need a huge focus on the importance of parenting, not when a child gets into trouble but from birth. Health visitors are vital. Their role is not just about health and the practicalities of parenting, but about whether a parent is interacting with a baby in a positive way. We certainly need more nurture groups of parents and children. We need to encourage the programme that I spoke of in a Question earlier this week, the UNICEF Rights Respecting Schools initiative, which emphasises the need for children to develop wide concepts of rights and responsibilities as they grow up.
	If a child is nurtured, he or she is more likely to be able to co-operate rather than to use violence to relate to others. If a child is nurtured, he or she is able or more likely to be able to resist and challenge bad behaviour in others, including negative media influences, bullying, drug taking, indulging in early sex, violence and so on. The Government's 10-year strategy Aiming High for Young People talks about protective influences and their impact on young people.
	One of the things that struck me from the Good Childhood Inquiry was the emphasis by the children on the importance of relationships. They said that they want love and care from the people whom they want to love and care for them. They want someone to talk to and someone to listen. They want people to respect one another. They want close friends and a loving home—a nice home. Good families provide all this. Sadly, some families do not and, if children go into care, the system too often fails to make amends for a broken family life. I know that improvements are in train. Some things are not complicated, such as having a child attached to a key worker and not moved around.
	I am worried by the rise in the use of custody for children. Both victims and perpetrators of violent crime are becoming younger. Only 4 per cent of 10 to 25 year-olds are very frequent and serious offenders, but the number of children being locked up has increased by 550 per cent in the last decade and there have been terrible examples of violence inflicted on these children. What impact must violent punishment have on damaged individuals, mainly boys? Many of these children will have been in care, will have been suspended or expelled from school and will have had educational difficulties or some trauma in their life. I agree with Barnardo's that such children are children in need. Early interventions in their problems could help them. They are damaged and should not be encouraged by our systems to damage or become violent towards themselves and others.
	If only those children who committed grave crimes or violent offences were put in custody, about £27 million could be saved to put into early intervention. The Audit Commission estimates that, if effective early intervention were provided for one in 10 of young people in young offender institutions, annual savings of more than £100 million could be made. That saving could be put to good use in prevention programmes.
	Financial savings are only part of this equation. Early intervention, nurturing and good upbringing are absolutely vital if we are to encourage non-violent behaviour and prevent violence against women and children. The roots of violence, as I said, are to be found in emotional neglect, poor communication and lack of boundaries for acceptable behaviour. I ask the Minister whether the Government will expand their support for interventions to enable children to be properly nurtured so that they do not grow up to be depressed and unhappy people whose last resort is violence of some kind. Does she agree that we could pull together what we now know about effective interventions to inform government policy? I look forward to her reply.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches pay warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for initiating this debate and for her introduction, which drew the breadth of the problem to our attention. She referred also to the costs to society, and not just the financial ones, enormous as those are. She set the tone for a very constructive debate.
	It is clear that a Minister from almost any department, certainly those covering children and families, health or the Home Office, could have answered this debate. We are very lucky to have here the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who is and will continue to be such a strong advocate across Government on this critical issue.
	Before I turn to the many issues relating to domestic violence in the UK, I echo some of the points so eloquently made by my noble friend Lady Northover. She spoke of the situation in developing countries and of "living on the edge". I declare an interest as one of the chairs of the All-Party Group on Street Children and a trustee of the International Children's Trust. Her words echoed what we have seen in so many presentations by NGOs and what I have seen in visits to street children projects abroad. The children are so often there not because they do not have families but because they have been driven out of home by the sort of violence that we are talking about this afternoon.
	One of the worst differences for children in that situation in many countries is that those agencies which should be protecting them, such as the police, are the very people who then abuse them and, in some cases, even kill them. I congratulate the Government on their efforts to allow the Home Office to send police to other countries to work with the police there on these issues. It is a tremendously important area of work that is often not much recognised. I also congratulate the Consortium for Street Children, the umbrella organisation for about 70 NGOs, large and small, on the work that it continues to do on violence and street children, bringing that problem to the attention of Governments throughout the world, and on working with UNICEF, which, until now, has failed to identify street children as a particular group. That brings enormous problems, because those children do not have the same access to the services they desperately need as other children. I am very grateful to my noble friend for drawing out that essential element in this debate. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, phrased her Motion widely enough to allow us to do that.
	On the situation in the UK, I am pleased that the debate has focused on the theme of children and how to break the cycle of violence and abuse. Noble Lords have said that there is no funding for places for children in refuges. One of the most striking things, when visiting a refuge, is how many children are there. According to the organisation Refuge—the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is a patron, spoke about it—two thirds of the places in refuges are taken up by children. Those places have no statutory funding; they have to be funded by charitable fundraising. The funding comes through those women who qualify for support for their stay. This is a particularly grave situation when, for the very reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, funding is becoming harder to come by.
	If we want to break the cycle of violence, it is essential to address the position of children in refuges. The speech by my noble friend Lady Walmsley taught me a lot that I did not know about, and outlined brilliantly the biological and psychological reasons why that cycle of violence is very hard to break if not addressed early on. It is hard to imagine how the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, continues to be so optimistic, given what she has observed. She shared some of that with us this afternoon, for which I am grateful.
	Other noble Lords have touched on the definition of domestic violence. I will not, therefore, dwell on it, save to say that I am looking forward to the Minister's outline of what the Home Office intends to do about improving the definition so that it is more inclusive. I will touch on the issues raised by several noble Lords about the map of gaps that shows which local authorities do not supply the services. I highlight the plight of women in rural areas and market towns. On that map an awful lot of the red areas, which identify the gaps, are in rural areas. It is already lonely enough in such places, but if you cannot even access the services to get you out of a situation of domestic violence, there really is a problem. Perhaps this is an area that the Commission for Rural Communities, under the leadership of Stuart Burgess, should particularly look at. It is a very difficult situation.
	I am sure that the Minister will not, in her reply, pass the buck back to local authorities; nor should local authorities pass the buck by blaming a lack of government funding. Enormous effort, shared between central and local government, is required to overcome this issue because the local authorities that struggle to provide services, particularly in rural areas, are, quite rightly, subject to consultation on how they should spend their budgets. However, one effect of that is that the people who own laptops, get in touch with the council and respond to consultation are normally those who complain about potholes, not with those who suffer domestic abuse. As a result, matters such as the highways budget stay at the top of the agenda, while domestic abuse and violence stay at the bottom of the spending priorities. Only a partnership between central and local government, and Audit Commission measures, can solve this. That is one way to bring areas that tend to get ignored year after year to the attention of failing local authorities.
	I turn now, in the time left, to some of the issues that will be exacerbated by the financial crisis. There are several continuing studies into the effect of what is defined as economic violence, meaning the control of a woman by denying her her economic rights. Indeed, the 2001 British Crime Survey found that women in households with an income of less than £10,000 were 3.5 times more likely to experience domestic violence than those living in households with an income of over £20,000. I would be interested to hear from the Minister if that has changed over time. I suspect that it has not, and that the likelihood is, therefore, that we can expect domestic violence to get worse in a financial crisis.
	The Home Affairs Select Committee's report on domestic violence, published only last year, outlined that it was important that victims are able to access financial support quickly and easily to prevent them becoming trapped in that cycle of abuse. Have the Government considered implementing the Select Committee's recommendation of some form of support, perhaps an interest-free loan to assist with resettlement?
	The Attorney-General was kind enough to reply to my Question [HL488] about outcomes of the court process, and I found the table that she provided extremely useful. Where unsuccessful outcomes were recorded—there were 18,500 of them, which is not a small number—what happened next to the women concerned? They must then have been at higher risk, which is a real difficulty.
	The Government are to be congratulated, as noble Lords have said, on setting up the specialist domestic violence courts, but there is a way further to go. I look forward to hearing from the Minister where it will lead.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I join all other speakers in this debate in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on introducing this subject. Perhaps I may also say how grateful I was for her remarks welcoming me to this debate as a mere man. I think that behind what the noble Baroness said was that it is important that an issue such as this should not become a reserve only for women Members of this House or for others in the debate. Therefore, while I would like to pass on the apologies of my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, who was hoping to speak in this debate, I offer no apologies whatever for my own presence here and hope that, on other occasions, other male Peers will speak in debates of this kind.
	I congratulate the noble Baroness also because the subject is, as always, topical. It is depressing that it is topical and that it has always been so. Perhaps I may give one faintly flippant-sounding example. Only last week, I went to watch "Carousel". I looked at all the other operas and musicals that were on and at the lighter end of spectrum, and saw that you have "Carousel", "Oliver!" and "Rigoletto", all of which deal with the subject of violence against women, violence against children or violence against both. I am not saying by that that this issue will always be with us, or that the matter is in any way trivial and nothing can be done, but merely underline the importance of the issue and how long it has been with us. That point was made strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who stressed that the whole legal system was stacked against women in the past. Was it only in the 1880s that women were allowed to possess their own property? I am sure that the Attorney-General will remind me of the Act.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It was the Married Women's Property Act.

Lord Henley: My Lords, other steps took a lot longer to come through.
	I use the opportunity of thanking and congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, to underline what we as Conservatives on this side of the House and what a future Conservative Government, which we hope to see fairly soon, would do. I am grateful for the topicality of the noble Baroness's debate, because, only last December, my right honourable friend Theresa May, the shadow Minister for Women—she was then shadow Leader of the House and is now shadow Secretary of State of the Department for Work and Pensions but also still the shadow Minister for Women—published the Conservative document Ending Violence Against Women. I shall say a little about it because it sets out our strategy for and vision of what should be done. I quote briefly from the foreword, which starts by saying:
	"Our vision is for a society in which no woman has to live in fear of violence".
	In quoting that, one must emphasise that it is not just violence that we are talking about but, obviously, fear of violence as well. She goes on to say:
	"Any approach that sees tackling violence against women simply as a matter for the criminal justice system misses the point. We are committed to implementing an integrated violence against women strategy in government".
	One might not like the grammar of that, but the intent is perfectly clear. The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, when she said how grateful she was that the Attorney-General was coming to wind up the debate but that any Minister could do it because it was a matter for an integrated policy. It is certainly one that we are committed to, which is why my right honourable friend Theresa May made that point about integration. I shall go on to say a little about that in due course.
	My right honourable friend went on to make it quite clear that:
	"Central to this must be prevention. We are determined to work with schools, police, health care professionals and the voluntary sector on preventative measures that can stop violence occurring in the first place".
	That is, it is not purely a matter for punishment in due course; it is a matter of prevention.
	In the time I have available, I do not feel that I will be able to go into the full detail of my right honourable friend's report. I hope that the Government and the noble and learned Baroness have taken the trouble to read it. If they have not, I shall certainly make sure that copies are made available to them, and I hope that they will study it. There are one or two points that come up in the paper which it would be useful for me to underline. I hope that in due course we can have some response from the noble and learned Baroness.
	First, there is the need for an integrated strategy—and here I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said. This is something that goes across all parts of the Government, and not only central but local government. The shadow Minister for Women, my right honourable friend, would be responsible for overseeing this. But all other departments would have to report on their progress every year. We would want to ensure that all departments adopt and work to the United Nations definition of violence against women, to which earlier speakers referred. Similarly, we would want to ensure that central government issued clear guidance to all local authorities to stress their responsibilities under gender equality duties in respect of violence against women. That is only guidance that can be issued to local authorities and it might still be that there are what people refer to as postcode lotteries. However, we would hope to ensure that we have the highest standards available to all.
	Secondly, on prevention, this is not just a matter for the criminal law. It is important to work with schools to encourage them to tackle violence and bullying as part of the culture of British education. We would want to issue further guidance on specific forms of violence against women, explaining clearly to teachers what they should do if they have suspicions and concerns about children.
	This brings me on to another aspect of domestic violence. The noble and learned Baroness will remember the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. I imagine that it was the noble and learned Baroness who took it through this House, along with a very large number of other Bills that she has taken through the House over the years. We would certainly want to give a commitment to review that Act and consider what changes are necessary. I should be very grateful if she could tell us what studies into it the Government have done and are likely to do in future. I say that because one section is causing us some confusion: the noble and learned Baroness will remember Section 12 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. We want to see that implemented. Why has it not been implemented? The noble and learned Baroness will remember that assurances were given by her right honourable friend Harriet Harman and by Gerry Sutcliffe in the Home Office in 2007 that Section 12 would be brought into effect. That was reversed by a statement from the Home Secretary some time later in 2007 when she stated that she did not think that it was necessary to introduce it but no reason was given. We are confused: we are entitled to an answer and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Baroness could cover that point.
	A range of other points are raised in the report. I am grateful for everything that has been said by noble Baronesses on forced marriage, female genital mutilation and rape and sexual violence. I will not be able to go into them in detail on this occasion. I want to end with a couple of further questions. First, on early release and the end of custody licence, we have a sneaking suspicion that a great deal of early release—this goes wider than the subject of violence against women—is a means of massaging the prison figures and getting them down. In the case of domestic violence, does the noble and learned Baroness agree that these are particular cases where early release is not suitable? We give a commitment to legislate to end the automatic release at the half-way point of an offender's sentence and we will not be using early release as a means of reducing numbers in prisons.
	My final question is about the matter relating to the funding of rape crisis centres. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could say a little more about the funding. At the moment, as I understand it, the funding is allocated on a year-on-year basis. We will give a commitment that a Conservative Government will end that process of short-term annual funding by introducing a stable three-year funding cycle for rape crisis centres. Will the noble and learned Baroness be able to match that commitment? We will give an assurance that we will fund a further expansion in rape crisis centres to ensure adequate and equitable provision for victims across England and Wales. We intend to allocate some £2.6 million over three years for 15 new rape crisis centres, growing the network by more than one third to ensure that more victims of rape and sexual violence have access to that vital support service where necessary.
	I end with one final question on costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, rightly referred to the costs of keeping young persons in youth offender institutions and said that the money spent there could be saved and spent on early intervention. Will the noble and learned Baroness be able to give some idea of the cost per annum of keeping a young person in such an institution? We have recently heard figures quoted of the order of £200,000 a year. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of us would agree that that money could be much better spent at an earlier stage. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Baroness has to say.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gale for initiating this important debate and for setting out the issues so comprehensively in her opening address. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He may be the only male voice in this debate, but his is an important voice and we welcome him wholeheartedly. We would like to see more support on his Benches, but I am sure that that is not because of any lack of interest on his part.
	The definition of what makes up domestic violence is something that we have debated for a long time. Some would like the definition to be wider, some would like it narrower. I am pleased to say that it has been an iterative process. The definitions used in England and Wales diverge, but only by a small amount. As part of the 2009-10 national domestic violence delivery plan, we are reviewing the definitions and considering others such as the one used in Wales.
	It is important to recognise, as noble Lords have said in this debate, that much has changed. It was right that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned "Oliver!" and other examples. The difference, of course, is that it was deemed acceptable in those days and something that may not have been acknowledged across society, and that has thankfully changed and changed radically. I also thank all noble Lords who complimented the Government on the improvements that we have sought to make in this important area. In turn, I thank all those who helped us. The third sector has played a huge part in knocking on the door of Government so that we have been able to hear. It is a great privilege that, since the Government came to office, we have been able to meet the aspirations that many people have.
	Over the past 30 years, domestic violence in the United Kingdom has gone from being an unspoken subject to one that is being jointly tackled by the Government and the voluntary sector together. The first refuge for women and children experiencing domestic violence opened in 1971 and that number has now increased by hundreds. It is right that my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws mentioned it.
	The detrimental impact of such violence on children is unquestionable, and I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, took as her subject matter that aspect of this issue. It has been clear and well documented that it is an integral part of the future of the child and it is essential that we address that. Regrettably, therefore, I am not surprised to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about what she has seen over the years. I regret to tell the House that that very much reflects what I have seen over what is now 30 years of experience in this area. However, we are making significant changes.
	The effort to integrate children into the policy is clearly seen in the first national delivery plan on domestic violence that we have put together. I will come to that in a moment. Your Lordships will know that in 2003, the Government and Comic Relief each contributed £1 million over three years towards the cost of developing new initiatives addressing domestic violence. There was the freephone helpline that received £600,000 over three years. Calls from landlines do not appear on telephone bills, which is an important factor. The helpline joined together with Refuge and Women's Aid existing helplines to provide a single and unique freephone service. It builds on the charities' support for services for women and children experiencing domestic violence.
	We understood in 2003 that the approach had to be holistic end to end. It was my great privilege to chair the Inter-Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence, which was responsible for putting together that integrated, holistic end-to-end approach. In 1997, we brought the issue of domestic violence right to the forefront, so that it would no longer be the taboo subject that many of us were grappling with. We produced the first cross-government national domestic violence delivery plan. I should make clear that the reason that I made it a delivery plan—I shall come clean—is that we wanted change, we wanted outcomes and we did not want platitudes. That would involve every single government department making a commitment to that change.
	Professor Sylvia Walby's work was instrumental in helping us to identify the contribution that had to be made by each department to reduce that £23 billion cost. We have been able to take a range of actions to reduce domestic violence, including establishing 104 specialist domestic violence courts. The plan is to reach 128 by 2011 and we have provided more than £6 million in this financial year to support the rollout of independent domestic violence advisers. I tend to call them "divas", because that is what they are and they do fantastic work. They are with the victims from the beginning to the end. They are at the end of a telephone and are present with the victims in court. Just the idea that someone is there to help is a huge support to victims.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked what has happened regarding unsuccessful outcomes. The good thing that has changed is that there is now someone to walk with that person. A domestic violence independent adviser can remain with a victim for up to three months for there to be an opportunity to consolidate on improvements that have been made, because many women feel incredibly vulnerable and go back to their partners because they do not think that they have a choice. Making that change has been important.
	Multi-agency risk-assessment conferences across England and Wales have linked into the specialist domestic violence courts. The identification of and dealing with risk, not just for the adult but for the children involved, has been pivotal. We started this work in 1997, and there had been a 58 per cent decline in the incidence of domestic violence by 2007-08. Your Lordships will remember that we made some clear outcome objectives in that delivery plan. We said that we wanted to reduce domestic homicide. We wanted to reduce the level of severe injury caused. We wanted to reduce the damage caused to children, and we accepted very hard targets. I am pleased to say that we have made real improvements in all those areas.
	The success rate on prosecutions for domestic violence continues to improve. In December 2003, only 46 per cent of domestic violence prosecutions resulted in convictions. We knew that that did real damage to confidence. By September 2008, that figure had increased to 72.1 per cent. That was not just in relation to the figures that we had in 2003; we have almost doubled the number of women who have the confidence to come forward. That is an important achievement.
	In 2007, we published a cross-government action plan on sexual violence and abuse and have provided more than £11 million in the past five years to support victims of sexual violence, in addition to the funding that has been provided locally. We have extended the network of SARCs—sexual assault referral centres. There are 26 SARCs, more are in development and further funding will become available in April this year. I very much welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition would agree with our commitment and would support our continued investment in this area. I hope that, in time, his party will match the extent of our commitment. I know that as a result of this debate he will make every effort to ensure that it does. We are also piloting independent sexual violence advisers to mirror the work already being carried out by the independent domestic violence advisers.
	The reporting of rape has increased since 1997 from 6,628 to 12,654 in 2007-08. I commend all the comments made by my noble friend Lady Gould in relation to this matter, because it is critical. The rise in the number of convictions is slow but it is surely going in the right direction. Now, 37 per cent of all cases prosecuted as rape cases result in a conviction, and 59 per cent of cases prosecuted as rape cases result in a conviction for another offence. This is the highest conviction rate for 10 years and, alongside that, the sentences increased from an average of about 40 months in 1984 to 77.9 months in 2007.
	The trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation and prostitution is another area that we have committed to. I know that we have not concentrated on that in this debate but it is a matter of real importance to our Government. In 2006, the Serious Organised Crime Agency was launched with trafficking as one of its key priorities. Following the first national enforcement campaign, Operation Pentameter, the multi-agency United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre was established.
	Therefore, we have, as has been pleasingly acknowledged, been able to make a real difference. How have we done that? The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about training. Professionals who have contact with domestic violence victims will receive training to address the needs of children who witness domestic violence. The individual domestic violence advisers, whom we have spoken about, receive accredited training. Their course consists of 15 days of modules, and children's issues are included in almost every one. As well as addressing children exposed to domestic violence, the course also deals with issues such as adolescence domestic violence, forced marriage and so-called honour-based violence. All the modules are delivered by experts in the field and, once the course is completed, there is ongoing development and support to ensure that advisers are updated with new developments.
	I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we have probably one of the most comprehensive legislative programmes for the protection of children in the world. All that legislation is there to help professionals to exercise their judgment so as to better protect the children about whom we care so much.
	The European Union has developed a set of guidelines on combating domestic violence against women. The guidelines mean that from now on the European Union will conduct systematic lobbying and reporting on this issue, as well as using funding to tackle it. The United Kingdom is actively contributing to current Council of Europe debates on violence against women. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's annual contribution to the Commonwealth Secretariat is about £4.2 million, and the gender section is developing a programme of work that spans gender-based violence, trafficking of women, children's human rights and other issues. We are committed to looking at whether it would be appropriate to sign the convention.
	The implementation of that programme is important, and it has to be seen alongside the work that DfID is doing with its international partners to tackle violence against women in 20 countries worldwide. We recognise that women are particularly vulnerable in conflict situations, but we also recognise that they should be seen not only as victims but as having an important role to play in peace-building and reconstruction efforts. The United Kingdom has been one of the principal supporters of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which calls on the UN and member states to ensure equal participation in peace-building and reconstruction efforts, women's empowerment, and the protection of women and girls in conflict.
	More recently, in June last year, we were active in lobbying for agreement to UN Security Council resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflict. I was very proud to represent our country at that time and, indeed, to attend the informal meeting of female Ministers put together by Condoleezza Rice. There, we discussed how better to address these issues and how to ensure that women's issues are at the top of the agenda. We also discussed how to ensure that good practice is shared, perhaps through toolkits, and what works right around the world. There were some very impressive contributions from the different countries and that work will continue.
	DfID is also supporting measures to eliminate female genital mutilation through its support of organisations such as UNICEF, as well as by being a member of the FGM donor working group. I was warmed to hear my noble friend Lady Rendell rise again on this issue. She has a made a real contribution to making sure that this unpalatable, distasteful issue is understood by those who are obliged to deal with it. We know that there is no quick fix to the problem of female genital mutilation and that legislation alone cannot eliminate the practice. It is a matter of comment that there have been no prosecutions so far. However, I agree with my noble friend when she says that prosecution alone is not enough. The fact that this practice has been made illegal has materially advantaged the community. Educating the practising communities to abandon the practice is the best way to break the cycle of mutilation, and the 2003 Act is being widely used to help to further that. I am pleased that my noble friend mentioned Project Azure within the Metropolitan Police child abuse investigation command unit, which specifically deals with this potentially fatal child abuse practice. We have released a DVD for health professionals to enable them to provide effective and sensitive care for women who have undergone FGM.
	I commend my health colleagues for the work that they have done not just on FGM but on domestic violence in general. We know from the World Health Organisation that domestic violence is the greatest cause of morbidity in women worldwide. The fact that we now have health professionals screening for domestic violence during pregnancy is making a huge difference. One in three of the women who come forward has indications of domestic violence. That is huge. The fact that we are now dealing with this aggressively is a huge contribution.
	We recognise that there is a strong link between child protection concerns and domestic violence and we stress the need for awareness of those links in the interagency guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children.There is much that I would like to say, because the DCSF is providing real support to the NSPCC—£30 million between last year and 2011—to support the expansion and integration of the NSPCC's listening services. This money will allow the NSPCC to expand its services significantly so that more children can be given the advice and help that can be so important.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke about forced marriage. I am very pleased with and proud of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act. As she knows, the Act is materially different from the Bill that was proposed by the noble Lord. I was pleased to be able to help to reshape it so that it was in a form that would have utility and application and that would be welcomed. It was a great pleasure when the Bill went through this House. It was something that I could wholeheartedly endorse, and I feel proud of having shaped it.
	That is a specialised area. All these issues integrated together cause us real pride, but also real concern. There is strong benefit from having a clearly recognisable leading service for supporting children and reporting suspected abuse. During 2007-08, the number of volunteers increased by 222, or 20 per cent, which enabled them to counsel 37,000 more calls. Over the same period, they made 9,500 referrals to social services and the police. Through feedback, it was found that 40 per cent of them were previously unknown to the authorities.
	My noble friend Lady Massey rightly asked, "What can we do to help parents? Are we getting in early? Is early intervention right?". The answer is yes, yes and yes. We are investing £102.5 million in 2008-11 in the deployment of parent support advisers, with more than 1,500 parent support advisers and similar professionals currently working in schools. We want to provide support for families to improve relationships, prevent problem behaviour and break the intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse.
	There are so many things that I would like to say about the issue. I know that I am over time, but I wonder whether I can touch on the funding issue raised by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. The Supporting People programme allows local government to determine the focus of funding and to support the most vulnerable. Evidence shows that funding of domestic violence services has risen from £59.3 million in 2005-06 to £61.6 million in 2006-07. That programme provides flexibility.
	I know that it is said that there is a lottery and that we want consistency. I endorse that, but the figures demonstrate that 73.5 per cent of local authorities now have specialised services to address violence against women. That is markedly different from the previous situation. Too many local authorities are still not providing support, but that is changing. Local area agreements give us light that can be used to ensure that funding provided to local authorities is used for that purpose, and authorities can be interrogated. The Government have invested about £11 million during the past five years in specialist services for victims of sexual violence. Improvements have been made, but there is much, much more to do.
	I would have liked to spend more time talking about some of the international dimensions and answering many questions about them. I assure noble Lords that I have answers for all of them; I wish that I had the time to give them. On behalf of the Government, perhaps I may say how proud we are of how much has been done not just by us but by all those who have contributed to this agenda. I thank each and every Member who has participated in the debate. We are old friends. I hope that as we continue to have these debates there will be less for us to be concerned about. I will write to Members on all the matters on which, regrettably, I have not had the opportunity to reply in full to the House.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland for her response. She has given us positive things to think about. I started by saying how depressing are the figures for violence against women and children, but things are happening and we are making progress. We still want much more to be done. I thank all the other speakers as well, because we have had a wide-ranging debate geographically—internationally, across Europe, Wales and the United Kingdom. I thank them very much.
	The outcome has been that this is not a party-political matter. We can all agree on many things about how we tackle violence against women. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as the only male Peer speaking today, will now be an ambassador among all the male Peers to encourage them to take part in debates on what is, as we have said, not just a women's issue but an issue for women and men.
	I hope that one day the preventive actions that we are taking will greatly reduce the number of acts of violence against women and children. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
	Motion withdrawn.

Gulf War Illnesses
	 — 
	Question for Short Debate

Tabled By Lord Morris of Manchester
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have now made of the findings, published on 17 November 2008, of the Congressionally-mandated United States Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, we are met to debate a report which, exhaustively researched and of excelling integrity, is one also of humane concern for the many thousands of men and women, now in broken health, who were prepared to give their lives in the service of this country in the most toxic war in western military history.
	I will of course speak in detail about the report as I proceed, but I must first welcome my noble friend to the Dispatch Box. Before she became my noble friend here in 2005, I was for many years her right honourable friend in another place; but we were friends long before then, having first met when, in 1974, at the suggestion of a dear friend of ours, Lily Howe, I went as a Labour Front-Bencher to support her parliamentary candidature in Bolton. Yet, sadly, there is one irreconcilable difference between us: she is an ardent supporter of Bolton Wanderers and never more delighted than when they humble one or other of the Manchester teams.
	I am grateful also to the other noble Lords who will follow me in the debate, and the House will understand why I am specially glad to see among them the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. Had the findings of the independent public inquiry into Gulf War illnesses, headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, been acted upon, the controversy it addressed could have been settled years ago; while the abiding devotion of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, to helping those afflicted and bereaved by the Gulf War is held in high admiration in all parts of this House. All of us deeply regret that, for medical reasons, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, cannot be with us. She is warmly regarded by Gulf veterans and much missed here this afternoon.
	I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. In January 2002, the United States Congress co-opted me, uniquely for a non-American, to serve from the dais on its committee of inquiry into Gulf War illnesses, from whose deliberations federal funding of the Congressionally-mandated Research Advisory Committee ensued. That is why I was asked to speak at the launch of its historic report in Washington last November.
	Appropriately, one of the first voices to be heard on the report in this country came from the medical community. The Lancet, in an editorial, called urgently for,
	"expanded programmes of care, support and compensation",
	which it described as,
	"the least that is now owed to those whose tenure of service to their country turned into lifelong disability".
	The editorial pointed to the RAC's repudiation of claims that what veterans and the media have called Gulf War syndrome—GWS—is a psychiatric disorder or stress-related whereas in truth, reported the Lancet, Gulf War veterans,
	"actually have lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder than veterans of other wars".
	Readers were also told of cognitive problems, complained of by British and American veterans, as well as,
	"fatigue and chronic pain, and digestive, respiratory and skin disorders",
	and of their having been found by successive scientific studies to have,
	"significantly higher rates than other veterans of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and brain cancer".
	Readers were further informed that Gulf War illness, which for its greater precision the RAC prefers to Gulf War syndrome, had now been attributed to two neurotoxic exposures to which virtually all British veterans were subjected; namely, organophosphates and pyridostigmine bromide, a drug never tested on human beings and designed to protect against nerve agents.
	The RAC's report has been backed by many distinguished doctors and scientists, including Dr Norman Jones, formerly emeritus consultant physician at St Thomas's Hospital, who sat with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, as medical assessor throughout his inquiry; Dr Malcolm Hooper, an emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry, who presides over the Gulf Veterans and Families Association; Professor Christopher Foster, professor of pathology at the University of Liverpool and author of a masterly assessment of the report; and crucially, Dr Jack Melling, formerly executive director at Porton Down. They point out that the RAC was,
	"packed with eminent medical scientists, all leaders in their fields, and based on 1,840 scientific communications, the vast majority of which have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, most of the remainder having been included because of the repute of their authors".
	What emerges from all that has been said and written about the report both here and in the United States is a clear consensus now of informed opinion that Gulf War illness—GWI—is real, serious and potentially deadly; that at least two neurotoxic exposures were causal factors; that GWI relates only to Gulf War deployment and differs from illnesses experienced by veterans of other conflicts; that attempts to pass off GWI as primarily a psychiatric condition are not supported by the evidence; and that any delay now in addressing the implications for British veterans of the RAC's findings would be inexcusable.
	Two points sometimes made for the MoD are that it never doubted that some veterans were ill due to the conflict and that its spending of some £8.5 million—$12 million—on researching the scientific background to the illnesses was to be welcomed and by implication applauded. This is said despite US spending on research totalling $380 million.
	The MoD's spending did not impress Flight Lieutenant John Nichol, whose bravery under torture in Iraq in 1991 was seen on TV screens across the world. He told the Lloyd inquiry:
	"The MoD says it has spent £8.5 million pounds on research in the years since the conflict. That compares with the nearly £8 million they spent in a single year on entertainment".
	He added:
	"We weren't the enemy, but that's exactly how Gulf veterans have been made to feel by the MoD".
	Samantha Thompson, the widow of a Gulf veteran, was no less pointed in telling the inquiry that she and her seven year-old daughter would have been better treated if her husband had served in the armed forces of the United States. Yet in saying that she was literally correct because her husband Nigel, decorated by Tony Blair in Downing Street for "conspicuous gallantry", died of motor neurone disease which in the United States, such is the prevalence of the disease among veterans there, is treated as a Gulf War-related affliction.
	Research showed the statistics here make the case even more strongly, but the MoD's response was to tell Samantha that:
	"Research must be peer-reviewed".
	As of now, five years on, motor neurone disease is still not accepted as Gulf War-related in the UK.
	Further to the reply of my noble friend Lord Drayson of 17 December at col. WA 43of the Official Report on the Medical Research Council's much criticised involvement, can my noble friend Lady Taylor say what peer review there has been of the MRC's work for the MoD on Gulf War illnesses, and its findings, and also how the department reacts to Dr Norman Jones's comment on my noble friend Lord Drayson's reply that:
	"The RAC's report reviewed hundreds of studies published after the MRC's report to the MoD of 2003 which must therefore now be regarded as left far behind"?
	And why do we now need a peer review of an RAC report that is itself a peer review of already published scientific work that was peer reviewed before publication?
	Before my noble friend replies, it might be helpful for me to give her my understanding of the constitutionalities vis-à-vis the peer reviewing of RAC reports, which is that Congress by law has designated the RAC itself as the body responsible for,
	"reviewing the scientific evidence and Federal Programmes relating to the health consequences of 1991 Gulf War service".
	She might like to check this, and in doing so read what the RAC says on its legal status at page 20 and elsewhere in the report.
	None of us here—and certainly not my noble friend—can want to see the afflicted and bereaved of the Gulf conflict made to suffer the strain and hurtful and demeaning indignities of still further delay in reaching closure on their anxious concerns. Yet they still see no end to their anguish.
	My Lords, of all the duties that fall to parliamentarians to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than to act justly to those who, alone in this country, contract with the state to lay down their lives in its service and the dependants of those who do so. There was no delay in the response of our troops to the call of duty in 1990-91. Nor must there be still further delay now—more than 18 years on from the conflict—in discharging in full our debt of honour to them.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on securing this important debate. No one has done more than he has over the years to obtain some satisfaction for the veterans of the first Gulf War who are now suffering from Gulf War syndrome, a label which, ultimately, the Ministry of Defence accepted as being a correct umbrella term. However, if we accept the findings of the massive new report which is now before us, we can instead refer simply to "Gulf War illness". There is an interesting passage in the report at page 41, where the authors of the report discuss what we mean when we talk of Gulf War syndrome as being unique. They accept that the consistent pattern of symptoms from which veterans are now suffering would fall well within most definitions of what is meant by "syndrome", but say it is easier and simpler to refer to Gulf War illness. I am certainly happy with that and I imagine that the veterans will be happy too.
	However, I am not so happy with an answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on 9 December 2008, to a Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. He said at column 258 of Hansard that there is—and I paraphrase—no justification for treating Gulf War veterans differently from others from other operations who have the same conditions. I have difficulty with that answer for this reason: the one thing on which everyone is agreed is that there has been no similar widespread and unexplained symptomatic illness identified in any other war zone, either before the Gulf War or since. That finding is made quite clearly on page 1 of the report. So, in that sense at any rate, Gulf War illness or syndrome—whatever you call it—is, indeed, unique. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she will at least accept that.
	I turn now to the more important issue of causation. When Dr Norman Jones, Sir Michael Davies and I wrote our report in November 2004, there were a number of different possible causes. A medical appendix, written by Dr Norman Jones, was attached to the report, and in part 2 of that appendix he listed no fewer than nine possible causes of the illness, either alone or in combination. But although there were nine possible causes in all, there were three front-runners to which I shall refer.
	The first was the multiple vaccinations to which it was said by the Ministry of Defence that the men had given their informed consent, whatever that may have meant. So the first possible cause was what came to be known as the cocktail of injections which the men were given before going to Iraq. Secondly, there were the organophosphate pesticides used to spray the tents in which they were living when they got to Iraq. For many years the Ministry of Defence denied that OP sprays had been used at all, except in the case of one single tent. But eventually, on 10 December 1996, Mr Soames admitted that Parliament had indeed been misled. Thirdly, there were the nerve agent pre-treatment sets, or NAPS tablets as they were known for short, which the men were required to take in the event of a threatened gas attack. They had never been used before by our forces or the American forces on anything like the same scale.
	The medical appendix deals with each of these causes in some detail and we owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr Norman Jones, who wrote it. He also dealt with the other possible causes, such as depleted uranium shells which were used for knocking out the Iraqi tanks. In the body of our report we did not reach any conclusion as to which of these actually caused the illness. It would have been ridiculous for us to attempt to do so because there was still much research to be done. Causation was an issue, as we saw it, on which the jury was still out. Stephen Irwin QC took the same view when he advised in March 2003 that legal proceedings against the Ministry of Defence would be unlikely to succeed, for without reliable evidence as to cause of illness, it would be difficult to establish negligence as the basis of the cause of action.
	We are now six years on and a prodigious amount of money has been spent—said to be $300 million in the United States on research and £9 million in this country. As a result of all that research, we now have a much clearer picture, and that is why this report which we now have is so important. It has provided us with the evidence which we have always needed. The committee which prepared the report under the chairmanship of Mr James Binns was appointed by Congress in 2002. It published an interim report in 2004 and the final report, which we now have before us, in November 2008. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the committee has reviewed 1,840 scientific papers listed alphabetically at the end of the report. I am told by Dr Norman Jones that the great majority of these papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals.
	The committee has gone through all the possible causes in the greatest detail and concluded that only two remain which have been consistently identified by all the evidence—NAPS tablets and OP pesticides. Together, as they say, these causes make a compelling case as the causative factors involved. True, other factors cannot be absolutely ruled out, but there is little or no evidence to support them.
	In his Answer on 9 December the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that the Government would need time to consider the report—no one would quarrel with that—but he went on to say that it would have to be peer-reviewed. Why? The report we now have is not a piece of original research; it purports to be a report of findings based on the research of others, and that it is indeed what it is. It is a report of findings by a committee of medical scientists, all of whom, according to Dr Norman Jones, are leaders in their fields. What more do we need?
	In our report in 2004—modest when compared with the report we now have—we said that on causation the jury was still out. I suggest that the jury has now returned and that the verdict is to be found in the Binns report. If that report needs peer review, then peer review will never cease. After six years the Binns committee has brought its labours to an end; what conceivable purpose could be served by asking the MRC or indeed any other body to go through the evidence all over again—all 1,840 papers of it? It is surely not suggested that Gulf War illness on this side of the Atlantic is any different from Gulf War illness on the other side. I ask the Minister to accept on the basis of the Binns report that the probable causes of Gulf War illness are the two that have been identified by the committee. We cannot be certain, of course. Little in life is certain, and even less in litigation. But probability, the civil standard of proof, is enough now to enable us to deal justly—and, I hope, generously—with the veterans suffering from Gulf War illness.
	Where, then, does that lead us? The Government have already apologised for the way the veterans suffering from Gulf War illness have been treated, but say that the veterans are now receiving pensions to which they are entitled and, so far as compensation is concerned, that is the end of the story. That is not an end to it, however. The war pension scheme entitles the veterans to a pension for injuries attributable to their service. But the peculiarity of the present case is that the injuries received by the veterans are not attributable to enemy fire, accident or anything of that kind; they are attributable to the NAPS tablets with which they were issued by the MoD and to the OP sprays, supplied by the MoD, with which their tents were sprayed.
	No government department likes to create a precedent—

Lord Brett: My Lords, we are limited to a 10-minute contribution in this debate, and the noble Lord has taken 12 minutes.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I shall complete it in two sentences. I need only say that no department likes to set a precedent, but if I am right that Gulf War illness is unique then no precedent will be set. It is time for the department to act generously in response to the many requests that have been made.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on obtaining this debate. It gives Her Majesty's Government an early opportunity to comment on the scientific findings and recommendations of the US congressionally mandated examination of all evidence on Gulf War illness. It is a most impressive document and I hope that we can be assured that the Government are treating its findings and recommendations seriously. I remind the House that I was the Chief of the Defence Staff throughout the first Gulf War.
	All those who have suffered from illness following their operational involvement in that war, their families and close friends, many others in the service charities, especially those in the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association and in Parliament who have taken an active interest in this issue, anxiously wait for the Government's response. The hope for us this evening is to be told that Her Majesty's Government accept these findings and that they will act on them and make clear to all in the British Armed Forces that they intend to do so.
	As I have pointed out in a number of debates on this issue in your Lordships' House, it is not only those who served in the Gulf in 1990-91 who are concerned; so, too, are many others now serving. They need to be reassured that any Government of the day will act promptly and fairly in their dealings with them and their dependants if they were to become ill as a result of their service. This undertaking to deal fairly was explicitly promised by the Prime Minister in the foreword to the recent Command Paper 7424, The Nation's Commitment.
	It cannot be said that many of those who became ill following the 1991 conflict have had a fair deal at any time in the past 18 years. For far too long, lasting health consequences were denied, trivialised or regarded merely as a stress-induced psychiatric condition. While claims have been accepted when the claimant has a recognised clinical condition, it has been very much harder—and not always with a satisfactory outcome—for a veteran to gain an award if their illness is not listed by the World Health Organisation. This has been a Catch-22 situation for Gulf veterans. While obviously far from well, without a condition that is listed their claim for adequate compensation may be turned down.
	Is it satisfactory to assume, however, that the World Health Organisation list is a complete and unchangeable lexicon of clinical conditions? Medical advances alone can lead to the discovery and recognition of new conditions. I believe, following this US report, that Gulf War illness should be added to the list of conditions acknowledged by the WHO. Then the way ahead for a claimant would be much more straightforward. Is there enough in the US report to merit this addition by the WHO?
	Rightly, the US report emphasises the need to help those who are sick. Research into some form of cure or alleviation of the worst effects of the illness is important. I hope the Government will also agree on that and underwrite their support with further funds for research.
	The medical director of Breakspear Hospital, in Hemel Hempstead, wrote to me recently to say that they had been working in this field of environmental medicine. They had experience in dealing with people who had been exposed to pyridostigimine and other neurotoxins. I hope this will also be looked into by the Ministry of Defence.
	I would like to touch on another issue. The Command Paper set out some good intentions for looking after veterans when they have left their service. I am far from clear, however, how the Government intend to monitor progress and introduce any necessary changes to the new supporting arrangements. Gulf War illness veterans will be most interested in this. The Command Paper mentions an external reference group which is to report annually to the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. Has this group yet met? When will it be making its first report?
	The group itself, which includes government departments, devolved Administrations, defence academia, service families' federations and key service charities, sounds unwieldy and perhaps not so well equipped to deliver on these new initiatives. Will the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association be invited to attend? I would like to see an independent chair for this external reference group.
	It is alarming to read that a considerable number of veterans have criminal convictions and that some are now in prison. Whether their misbehaviour is a symptom of clinical depression or not, it is worrying that we do not yet seem to have enough interest or understanding of the reasons why previously well disciplined individuals now misbehave. I welcome the new prison in-reach initiative, which reflects a greater commitment to veterans in trouble with the law who have left the service. But pre-offence support is far less evident.
	The service charities do an excellent job, but it should not all be left to them alone to assist veterans in difficulty. The introduction of a part-time junior Minister for veterans within the Ministry of Defence is a start, but is it enough? Regrettably, this Minister and his supporting staff have, from time to time, been seen to act in defence of the MoD's interests rather than in the interests of the veteran.
	In the United States there is both a Department of Defense and a wholly separate Department of Veterans' Affairs. The US forces and their veterans are, of course, very much larger in number than ours and the supporting services for US veterans are structured differently from those here in the UK. But we have a large number of veterans, stretching back over many decades, many of them in need of advice or help. They do not have a single service point of contact to support them or to point them in the right direction. Should there not be within each service, perhaps at the command headquarters, a well publicised and active veteran support cell? Veterans of all ages could be made aware of this cell, knowing that it is there to help with any issue that arises in their civilian life after they have left the service and to point them in the right direction. That would be much less impersonal than contacting the Veterans Agency. Not many are comfortable with the agency concept, and some do not even have a clue what it does. While the service charities provide much valuable support, some veterans and dependants may feel embarrassed or reluctant to have to turn first to charity.
	It is time that the Ministry of Defence was no longer seen in any way as the uncaring face of bureaucracy but was structured to provide proactive support for veterans—ongoing, whole-of-life support. We must turn the fine words of giving veterans a fair deal into practical and reliable help for all of their lives. They have served their country well; they deserve the unashamedly special treatment that the Minister has said is their due. It is still due to veterans with Gulf War illness.
	I acknowledge that the present Minister for veterans has embarked upon a range of initiatives and set himself the challenge to do better by our veterans. In that, I wish him well.

Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I crave your indulgence to speak in the gap. My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester acquits me of any discourtesy; in fact, he rather wants to see me on my feet.
	I speak on this subject with very little knowledge except that for a couple of years I had to field a stream of questions on it from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and my noble friend. I cannot speak too highly of my noble friend's dedication to this cause and the time he has put into it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has said.
	I want merely to say today how much I endorse everything that I have so far heard in this debate. I ask the Minister to try to get the Ministry of Defence to move as quickly as possible to closure on this matter. I know perfectly well that she will be sympathetic. The veterans have waited far too long and have often been libelled in the press, which is most unfortunate, as I am sure my noble friend will agree. Anything that the Minister can say that will encourage us to believe that the veterans' years of agony are quickly coming to an end will be welcome in all quarters of your Lordships' House.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on bringing this debate forward, and recognise the considerable campaign that he has carried out over many years. Since 1997, when I think he asked his first parliamentary Question on this matter in another place, he has been consistent in his endeavours to obtain justice for those who suffer from Gulf War illness.
	The US report, which was published last November, concluded that Gulf War illness is a serious condition. It affects one-quarter of US veterans who served in the 1990-91 war. That is a very high proportion. It is described as a,
	"complex of multiple concurrent symptoms [that] typically includes persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems and other chronic abnormalities not explained by well-established diagnoses".
	It also says that no effective treatments have been identified for Gulf War illness, and studies indicate that few veterans have recovered over time. It is an extremely serious condition that all these servicemen have suffered from over the years.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has pointed out, the US report is not simply a one-off report by one scientist, but a combination of conclusions from extensive research carried out by many people, both in this country and the United States. I hope that its conclusions put an end to the suggestion that Gulf War illness is nothing more than a psychiatric condition. At one time, during discussions about Gulf War syndrome, one particular medical professional voiced the opinion that 90 per cent of those who said that they were suffering from it were malingerers. This report has finally and conclusively put an end to that.
	I share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, over the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on 9 December, when he said:
	"There is no justification for treating Gulf veterans differently from others from other operations who have the same conditions".—[Official Report, 9/12/08; col. 258.]
	I have considered that as a serious question. Many veterans have been injured and suffered illness and the consequences of being involved in military operations. Why should the Gulf War veterans be singled out for ex gratia payments or something above the war pensions or lump-sum payments that are customarily awarded? There are a number of important distinctions. First, as has been said, this is a unique condition that has arisen from this conflict. Secondly, it is a condition that does not come from any enemy action. The US report now shows conclusively that it is derived from treatments and applications that were imposed on our soldiers in the course of their service. The PB tablets, which were anti-nerve gas agents, were given to them because there was a risk of injury in chemical warfare. The organophosphates were employed to fumigate the tents to prevent illnesses derived from pests. That is rather different from the kind of illnesses and injuries that soldiers might expect in conflict with the other side.
	The Government have failed to recognise this as something for which special treatment should be given. It reminds me that the same approach is used in relation to those servicemen who were exposed to nuclear testing in Australia in the 1950s. I know that a case is going on at the present time and that I should not say too much about it, but it was interesting to see the Government's response to the bringing of those proceedings. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said:
	"The UK government recognises the vital contribution service personnel played in the UK's nuclear tests during the 1950s and understands its obligation to veterans. When compensation claims are received they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid".
	That is the attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards servicemen who were injured in the 1950s and have suffered ever since as a result of being exposed to radiation. When Gulf War syndrome was put forward as a basis for compensation, the Government again said, "Well, you can't prove it. We need causation to be established before we are prepared to pay anything other than the ordinary war pensions or lump-sum payments".
	If these conclusions are accepted, it gives rise to the possibility of the resurrection of those actions which were stayed in 2003. The Government have sought in the case of the atomic tests to say that the actions are out of time and cannot be brought now, but it is possible that those limitations can under the Limitation Act be overcome by the provision of new scientific evidence. The Government should be aware that if they are not generous in their approach and do not accept the conclusions that the report puts forward, they may face the kind of claims that are being made by those who are claiming for exposure to radiation through atomic tests.
	My noble friend Lord Tyler asked Her Majesty's Government in November what their reaction was to the report. The answer given by the Minister was that it was being carefully assessed. She noted that the US Department of Veterans Affairs had sent the report to the Institute of Medicine for review and said that she would await the outcome of that process before making any comments on it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, peer review is quite inappropriate to a report of this kind. It is comprehensive. It has brought in all the experts in this field, and their wisdom has been fully investigated and used for the purposes of coming to its conclusions. So what are we waiting for? What can the Institute of Medicine in the United States add to all the expertise that has already been brought forward? I urge the Minister today to accept the conclusions, to accept that the causes found in the report are established and to accept that special circumstances take the case of the Gulf War veterans outside the normal—and, in those circumstances, to bring forward proposals for properly compensating by way of ex gratia payments, or whatever, as the inquiry from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested in 2004, those who have had a sense of grievance over the past 18 years, ensuring that they can feel that their problems have been properly addressed and that they have received that which they are due.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing this important debate. I, too, pay tribute to him, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for all the work that they have done over a long period on behalf of those affected by Gulf War illnesses. I am also grateful to the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association for making its position clear to me.
	Gulf War I was unique. It was the most toxic war in western military history, and exposures suffered have now been shown to be associated with a pattern of symptoms and physical signs that were previously unknown. The report produced by the congressionally mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses has gone a long way towards answering some of the questions surrounding the term "Gulf War syndrome" and what it represents. I take this opportunity to thank the committee for its extensive and scientifically based research into a condition that has been little understood, often trivialised and treated as a stress-related condition. This report shows not only that Gulf War illness is not stress-related, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, said, but that it can no longer be marginalised or dismissed.
	As we are all aware, Gulf War illness displays many different symptoms. Some of these are,
	"persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems, and other chronic abnormalities".
	Previous studies have shown that higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and brain cancer have been found than among other veterans. Moreover, according to the Lancet, these symptoms were suffered by 174,000 US veterans and somewhere between 6,000 to 12,000 British soldiers.
	As the report states, it is now clear that,
	"the extensive body of scientific research now available consistently indicates that Gulf War illness is real, that it is the result of neurotoxic exposures during Gulf War deployment, and that few veterans have recovered or substantially improved with time".
	It specifies that PB pills used to combat nerve agents and pesticides during deployment are "causally associated" with Gulf War illness. We can now see that for these soldiers their,
	"short tenure of service to their country turned into a lifelong disability".
	The Ministry of Defence has on its website a clear statement of its position on Gulf War illness. It says:
	"Gulf Veterans' illnesses issues remain a priority for the Government".
	However, it goes on to say that,
	"patterns of symptoms are similar to those experienced by personnel who did not deploy, and overall severity of the symptoms is not high".
	Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to revise their line to include the more up-to-date information from the report? Will she also say why it has not been updated given that the report was published on 17November last year? The Ministry of Defence website also states:
	"We are committed to research aimed at improving the long term health of those veterans with persistent symptoms".
	This is highly relevant, because the report makes it clear that its findings should be seen as a basis for further investigation—primarily, of course, to research ways of helping those suffering from Gulf War illness, but also with regard to other related issues. It flags up the concerns about Gulf War veterans suffering from other diseases such as ALS, a progressive neurodegenerative disease that attacks nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, and brain cancer. It suggests that these should be monitored for the foreseeable future. There are important questions about how to help to improve the health of Gulf War veterans, and further analysis is needed regarding the health of their children.
	Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are committed to this new research? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who was, as he said, Chief of the Defence Staff during the first Gulf War, has said that medical treatments for these conditions are needed to protect current and future military personnel at similar risk. Will the Minister tell the House what action will be taken to help to reduce the threat of this kind of illness in the future? In the US, especially in the light of the recent research, it is now a "national obligation" to make sure that the health of Gulf War victims improves and that nothing like this ever occurs again. This is made especially urgent by the many years during which Gulf War veterans have waited for answers and assistance. Will the Minister assure the House that plans are in place to make sure that the UK will also play its part in this national obligation? The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, pointed out that our veterans have waited a long time. They and their families deserve our help.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, we have had an interesting, if brief, debate. The one point that unites everyone in this House is the congratulations expressed to my noble friend Lord Morris on obtaining the debate but also in his sheer dogged persistence over many years in pursuing this campaign and starting it when, as noble Lords have mentioned, it was not a popular or fashionable campaign. As has been said, in those early days many people trivialised the issue and assumed that this was a stress-related illness. I was alarmed by the figure that was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, from the press, in the context of their derogatory remarks about people who suffer from it.
	Having praised my noble friend Lord Morris, perhaps I can say that I was not too delighted that he reminded people how long ago it was that I first fought an election. We will leave that matter to one side. I would like to clarify and explain the Government's position on Gulf veterans' illnesses. It is, as other noble Lords have pointed out, a sad truth that some service personnel have been affected by ill health due to their time in the Armed Forces. I am sure that I speak for everyone in this House as well as everyone in Government in saying that we must make it clear that we are not only aware of the sacrifices they have made but that we also accept a duty of care to them. That is important and something I want to emphasise, because the Government take that duty of care very seriously. It is manifested in various forms, from research to better understand some of the conditions that our veterans suffer from, to medical assessments and NHS treatment for those who need it. I will later touch on another aspect, financial support, which is provided through MoD war pensions and Armed Forces occupational pension schemes.
	We recognise that veterans may have particular needs. That is why in the Service Personnel Command Paper—which, it was mentioned earlier, was the first of its kind—we have committed ourselves to raising awareness among healthcare professionals in particular so that the needs of those who have served in the Armed Forces are met.
	The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, mentioned veterans' organisations. There has been a breakthrough, which I know that he welcomes. I hope that he will have confidence in that because there is now a separate single point of contact for veterans. The committee that he asked about has met on two occasions already and is due to meet again soon. That will certainly lift the whole profile of the help that is available for veterans and I hope it will be constructive to all veterans.
	In this debate, however, we are talking about a specific group of veterans—those who served in the Gulf in the 1990s—who have particular concerns about their health. We heard graphic descriptions about that this afternoon. I would like to take a moment to remind your Lordships that one of the first things that the Labour Government did after taking office in 1997 was to commission new research in this area. That was a mark of the serious intention on the part of Ministers from that date to take this issue seriously and try to find out what we could. That is why we have spent around £9 million funding expert medical research in this area.
	That research has come to the same conclusion as the independent Medical Research Council report from 2003, which looked at all the UK and international research into these issues. The conclusion was that,
	"there is no evidence from the UK or international research of a single syndrome related specifically to service in the Gulf".
	Of course, research work continues. Mention has been made today of the United States Institute of Medicine, which is currently considering the report published by the US Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that review. It is reasonable to have a review of the evidence that is presented by a set of experts. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris on having such a direct input into that committee, which shows the respect in which he is held on an international basis.
	We have a copy of that report in the MoD, and people are looking through it. I read the executive summary because I did not feel competent to read all the technical, scientific and medical expertise in the main body of the document. It is important that we wait until we have time to examine it fully. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said that it was reasonable to assess that report properly. It is a review of much of the evidence that has been put forward. However, it is important to bear in mind a couple of basic facts, not least that this report does not in itself identify a discrete pathological entity that is Gulf War syndrome. In some respects, therefore, we have not drawn the line in terms of definitions and in terms of causation. Obviously, we have to be willing to consider any credible new evidence, but the overwhelming consensus at the moment is that there are still too many symptoms and variations to have a syndrome according to the strict medical definition. Other noble Lords mentioned that as well.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, the MoD changed its approach and acknowledged that the phrase "Gulf War syndrome" had become widespread, and we therefore reviewed our position in terms of the use of it and accepted it as an umbrella term to address the concerns of veterans who felt that there was a direct link between their service and their illness, and that that had not previously been recognised.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not accept, even on the basis of the executive summary, that this committee, after six years has identified two specific causes as being the most likely causes of Gulf War syndrome? I identified those in my speech.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord did identify those causes, but the report also states that Gulf War illness does not fit neatly into well established categories of disease. One of the important points that I want to make is about what the report says about future work and where the emphasis of that should be. While I recognise that the stance of the MoD does not go far enough for some people, it is important that we retain our evidence-based approach and that we follow the evidence that can be made available to us. We are always willing to look at new evidence when it is made available.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in assessing the evidence, what standard of proof does the ministry demand? Is it proof beyond reasonable doubt or proof that it is more likely than not that the causes identified in the US report are the actual causes? If the Government were facing a case in court, the standard would be "more likely than not". Surely this report has reached that standard for all time.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, one of the problems is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence and a lot of ifs, buts, maybes and combinations. Indeed, some years ago it was suggested that the real issue was that there had been a cocktail effect whereby there was a combination of causes, as has been mentioned. While this report states that although there is a persuasive theoretical case, and although the case is compelling, little evidence is available to indicate whether or not Gulf War illness is associated with combinations of these exposures.
	If one looks at this report and the various issues that are very serious for many people—I do not underestimate how serious issues of brain cancer or a whole range of disabilities are—trying to collect those all together and establish a single causation needs a great deal of study. It is right that Ministers do not jump to conclusions and we go to the people who have the best information. I would not in any way minimise the impact of illness on any veteran, but we should bear in mind that there are some puzzling statistics in all of this, not least if we look at mortality statistics. The figures that I have state that there were 980 deaths of those who had served in the first Gulf War, but if one does an age-adjusted comparison, one would have expected more deaths by a considerable factor. We must be careful about making simplistic conclusions. This report states that it is difficult to make simplistic conclusions about cause and result, and that is important.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I draw attention to the phraseology on page 10 under the heading "What the Weight of Evidence Tells Us About the Causes of Gulf War Illness". The report states:
	"An extensive amount of available information now permits an evidence-based assessment of the relationship of Gulf War illness to the many experiences and exposures encountered".
	Is the noble Baroness saying that the report does not give her and the Ministry of Defence the right weight of evidence to meet the type of challenge that would be required in a court of law?

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, I am not trying to make judgments about what would happen in a court of law; I am trying to explain the complexities of the evidence, the fact that it is therefore right that experts in this field should be looking at this, and why peer review is important.
	I am urged to look at the time, but perhaps I may deal with one other extremely important issue—I hope we can all agree that it is one of the important things to come out of the report. It concerns the approach that we should all take to veterans with this kind of illness. The section entitled "Research Priorities and Recommendations" says that the primary goal should be,
	"improving the health of Gulf War veterans".
	The committee recommends that the,
	"highest priority be given to research directed at identifying beneficial treatments for Gulf War illness".
	That is one of the things on which we must concentrate attention.
	We are working to ensure that the right medical services are available for veterans and that general practitioners know that they have very serious responsibilities. Those should be among our primary goals. Although it is difficult to be absolutely precise about causation, and people will disagree on the weight of the evidence, there are things that we can do. One is to ensure that the war pensions and benefits to which veterans are entitled are paid. I wish to defend the statement of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. He said that payments should be made in accordance with disability or injury and not on the basis of causation or, indeed, on the basis of the label put on any illness. Instead, payments should be made on the basis of need and the level of disability. It is also important that, looking forward, we concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the treatment and support available are as good as possible.
	My honourable friend in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for veterans, recently met the organisation responsible. He is hoping to build on that meeting and to work through one or two of the problems, such as the funding of specific types of research, and I hope that something positive can come out of that. However, I assure my noble friend and all Members of your Lordships' House that the Government will look at the evidence very carefully and that we will ensure that it is considered by the right people. I am very pleased that we have been able to have this debate and I know that everyone in this House will take this issue seriously.

House adjourned at 5.58 pm.